(Tony: I wasn't using "leader" in the sense of 4e combat roles, I meant "leader" in the conventional sense.)
Leader in the conventional sense is certainly among the concepts that can be handled by the Warlord and inspired it in the first place. It is not, however the Warlord's function, anymore than it was of any other 4e class of the same role.
Like Aldarc said, it's something for discussion among the group. But not whether or how a player might play a Warlord, rather the issue of whether there will be a 'party leader.' IMX, most groups don't nominate a party leader, nor do they even discuss the possibility. Someone choosing to play a Warlord never changed that in the least.
But my hope is that instead a "master tactician" makes it into the game that gives you all the mechanics you want, without a few pieces of the fluff that I don't want. That is, anything that suggests the character is "leading" the other members of the party.Seems to me that's a decent middle ground.
If it were just that objection being raised, and it meant getting the Warlord into the PH as a class playable in AL, yes, it'd be a perfectly reasonable middle ground. I'm getting to play a warlord, you're not offended by the fluff, I can re-fluff it when you're not looking. You're still dictating to me what I can & can't play, but in a way that's minimally invasive.
I don't know how an unwillingness to change anything, as seems to be the case with some posters, constitutes the basis for moving toward a compromise.
The movement towards compromise already happened. By accepting the Warlord's absence from the Standard Game, those who wanted it have met those who wanted it excluded half-way, really, more than half-way. It remains to the anti-warlord camp to reciprocate, and stop trying to block the Warlord's addition to the advanced game where it will be wholly optional and effortlessly ignored.
"You had your way with first PHB, we get our way with next one" is not really meeting anybody halfway.
There is not slated to be a second PHB co-equal with but merely later than the first. The classes in the PH are Standard Game, new ones will be opt-in. That means that if you don't opt-in, they have no impact on you. So you've gone from the prospect of a class you don't want being in the Standard Game and open for AL play, and having to house-rule it away when you DM, try to explain to other players why you have a right to tell them what they can or can't play or just table-hop until you find an AL game where no one's playing one - not a fun prospect - to never having to worry about encountering it in official play nor when you run.
By contrast, the Warlord proponent has gone from the prospect of being able to play the class whenever he wants, to being able to play it at home games only, and only if he can talk the DM into opting into it.
The question should be "Can we design a class that will be acceptable to the majority?"
An edition meant to unite fans of all edition cannot afford to cater solely to some imagined majority among them. To do so is a formula for failure.
Now, if you /wanted/ a Warlord, the shape it took might be important to you. Even then, the workable 'compromise' would be to include enough options that each reasonable vision of the Warlord might be achievable and playable (obviously, using the original as a foundation). That's not too much to ask - the original Warlord delivered it.
