Berserker charge and changing targets

[Philippe D.]

A15.431 is probably too long for its own good - long rule paragraphs always cause confusion.

At the start of the MPh, each non-Melee berserk unit must charge the nearest (in hexes not MF) Known enemy unit in its LOS

If, in the act of charging the nearest Known enemy in its LOS, the berserk unit moves into the LOS of a closer (in hexes) Known enemy unit, he charges that unit from that point instead.

Should the only Known enemy unit no longer be in his LOS in the interim, the berserk unit still charges toward the hex originally occupied by that unit.

The basic rule is clear: charge the nearest unit in LOS. Problems come into play when there is no such unit in LOS.

1/ Suppose a Berserk unit charges its target, but due to having insufficient MF, it cannot reach it in its MPh. Then, during the opponent's turn, that target moves out of LOS, but another unit is in LOS - further away than the original target was. Where is the Berserker charging now? its original (close) target's hex, or the newly arrived nearest unit in LOS?

2/ Suppose the Berserk has no enemies in LOS, so that it charges its otherwise determined target hex. While moving, it discovers a new enemy unit - further away than the current target hex, but containng a Known enemy unit. Is this sufficient to make it change its destination?

(My interpretation would be that the "current target" is continually updated to be the nearest known enemy unit in LOS, wherever that is, and the "charge latest hex" rule only comes into play if there is no such known enemy in LOS; but I'm not 100% sure it's correct)

 

[Larry]

If, in the act of charging the nearest Known enemy in its LOS, the berserk unit moves into the LOS of a closer (in hexes) Known enemy unit, he charges that unit from that point instead.

That sentence answers all the questions posed. Whether charging a KEU or last known location of a KEU, shift to the new target that contains a KEU that is closer in hexes than any KEU or former location of a KEU.

 

[Binchois]

1/ Suppose a Berserk unit charges its target, but due to having insufficient MF, it cannot reach it in its MPh. Then, during the opponent's turn, that target moves out of LOS, but another unit is in LOS - further away than the original target was. Where is the Berserker charging now? its original (close) target's hex, or the newly arrived nearest unit in LOS?

Since the charge target is determined at the start of the Zerkie's MPh (as per A15.43, first sentence), it would charge the newly visible KEU.

2/ Suppose the Berserk has no enemies in LOS, so that it charges its otherwise determined target hex. While moving, it discovers a new enemy unit - further away than the current target hex, but containng a Known enemy unit. Is this sufficient to make it change its destination?

Definitely a harder question. But I think it would target the newly discovered KEU immediately upon gaining LOS. The rules state two things: First, that the originally targeted Location remains the target unless a closer KEU comes into view (as per A15.43 cited above):

If, in the act of charging the nearest Known enemy in its LOS, the berserk unit moves into the LOS of a closer (in hexes) Known enemy unit, he charges that unit from that point instead...​

But also, the RB requires that a Zerkie that starts its MPh without LOS to a KEU should continue to its originally targeted hex (as per A15.431):

Should the only Known enemy unit no longer be in his LOS in the interim, the berserk unit still charges toward the hex originally occupied by that unit. If it still sees no Known enemy unit, it ends its move after entering that Location...​

In your question, the newly discovered KEU is further than the originally targeted Location which might imply that the Zerkie continues as planned and only afterwards may it choose another target. But what if, along the way, it again leaves LOS to all KEUs? Would it go back towards the closest, or last seen KEU? This could get complicated, so best to keep things simple.

I do think there may be need for RB clarification here. But I think the intention is fairly clear.