DM? Chuck H2O in his face
- Sep 1, 2003
- Reaction score
That's what I thought at first, but I am RBH and I looked it up. DD squads only need to target a unit, unlike berserkers.NRBH, but i thought zerkers can target only KEU. So here the DD declaration would be NA.
A12.15 ......Why is the dummy removed?
Might also be a leader.The berserker trigger rule
A8.312 TPBF: An armed, unbroken Infantry DEFENDER not in Melee must after all Residual-FP/minefield/OBA attacks then immediately attack any Infantry/Cavalry MMC unit that enters its Location during the MPh...
This would make it obvious that the defender is a dummy, but I can't say if that would cause loss of concealment.
A15.431 also supports that concealed units (dummies) can be revealed by Berserkers as per my previous post.The reference is to A12.15, which says, "Whenever a non-berserk enemy unit enemy infantry/non-charging Cavalry unit attempts to move into a Location containing a concealed unit during the MPh..."
When a berserk unit enters, it does not trigger off A12.15. Ordinarily the unit would lose concealment for being forced to TPBF, but in this case that isn't going to happen. I think the dummy does not lose concealment. There may be something else I'm missing, of course.
The Dare Death rules for terminating berserk status are not the same as the regular berserk rules. Also, the adjacent unit is not KEU since it is concealed. If this were a "regular" berserker, it would not have charged at all, assuming no non-pictured KEU.As regards the original Q, assuming dummies are removed as above, I believe the unit would carry on to the adjacent KEU, as it has not met the requirements of A15.46, which requires elimination of all KEU in its Location.
Jeff, I'm not too sure that the differences change the situation above, assuming that dummies are removed. The DDS gets to pick a target, sure, but the rules don't mention what happens if the target is not actually at any point a KEU. A DDS loses berserk status at the end of it's CCPh, but I would argue that until then, if it's designated target was never a KEU, it is still berserk, and the last sentence of A15.431 applies.The Dare Death rules for terminating berserk status are not the same as the regular berserk rules. Also, the adjacent unit is not KEU since it is concealed. If this were a "regular" berserker, it would not have charged at all, assuming no non-pictured KEU.
A15.431 also supports that concealed units (dummies) can be revealed by Berserkers as per my previous post.
A15.431 ... If, in
How has this not had a Perry sez yet... I've reread the relevant rules section a dozen times and keep coming up with different conclusions.Unfortunately A12.15 is a little bit unclear. Is the EXC for "units allowed to enter an enemy location" referring to the "immediately reveal" part of the 2nd sentence, or just the "forced back" part?
If the former, then the unit in the hex being entered does not have to reveal anybody until it TBPFs, meaning a leader or dummy would stay concealed, and the berserker would in this case carry on into the hex with the KEU. If the latter, then the unit still has to reveal, eliminating a dummy stack, and causing a potential SMC to be OVR.
I think the latter is the best option, tbh.
Well, I think both you and I lost sight of a major factor.... there has to be a good order unit in LOS for the concealed unit to lose concealment to... A12.14 seems very clear on that... so at least on that count alone my Perry Sez Q draft was inadequate.I don't realistically think that there is any justification for the SMC (or dummies) to remain concealed when the berzerker enters it's hex, the first sentence of A12.15 notwithstanding.
Huh - good point! This also explains why 12.15 specifically talks about non-berserk. So here is how I see the sequence of events, please pick holes in it as appropriate.Well, I think both you and I lost sight of a major factor.... there has to be a good order unit in LOS for the concealed unit to lose concealment to... A12.14 seems very clear on that... so at least on that count alone my Perry Sez Q draft was inadequate.
I also dont understand how something can have "no justification" not withstanding what is written in the RB.
A better question needs to be drafted.
Possibly the "non-berserk" adjective was included in A12.15 to prevent thinking that they should first be bumped backwards whenever they attempt to enter concealed unit's Location. But this seems clear enough from the following EXCeption. Perhaps one of these qualifiers was added later and simply not edited sufficiently??The reason I said "no justification" was that the whole thing, i.e. the inclusion of "non-berserk" in 12.15, seems kinda weird for me. Why have berserkers not strip per 12.15, if the next thing that is going to happen is TBPF in almost all cases? And it's a pretty rare occasion to begin with, that a 'zerker would happen through a concealed unit en-route to a target. I just can't think of a reason why berzerkers are excluded from 12.15, it just doesn't add up to a game effect that makes any sense for me. If concealment isn't stripped and noone fires, then the berserk player knows that the units are dummies, or maybe a leader, and will most likely ignore that stack from then on out. Now if 8.312 added "unconcealed" to "armed, unbroken, infantry", then this would make more sense, although that would change how people react to HW/Banzai quite a bit, and create a bunch more undesirable follow-on effects. It just seems that treating a berzerker the same as everybody else in terms of 12.15 makes a lot more sense in terms of design and effect. Does anyone know why berzerkers (and human wavers at one point, I think) were excluded?
Of course, YMMV, and if I'm talking nonsense, please correct me!
The phrasing of the question, though, is tough, as there is so much going on...Possibly the "non-berserk" adjective was included in A12.15 to prevent thinking that they should first be bumped backwards whenever they attempt to enter concealed unit's Location. But this seems clear enough from the following EXCeption. Perhaps one of these qualifiers was added later and simply not edited sufficiently??
Really, this is a great thread with a question to Perry probably being a good idea. I'm satisfied that all of the answers can be found in the RB as is, but it is a little unclear if the results are actually by intention or by accident. Here is how I see it:
But what is the in-game effect behind this design? Really, we are talking about 2 extremely rare situations. First, a berzerker enters a Location containing no units capable of Defensive Fire. Second, a berzerker enters a Location with units who are capable of defensive fire, but there are no GO units on the 'zerker side that have LOS to that location (inside 16 hexes).Back to the OP example, if the Chinese were ordinary Zerkies, they would see no KEU, not charge, and Return to Normal. If there was some other IJA KEU in H2 (and the hex was at Level 4), they would then designate and charge H2. Upon reaching the F1 dummies, they would receive no fire and would continue (having gained some "crazy" reconnaissance intel). In G2, they would trigger A12.15, not be bumped (due to the EXC), and force TPBF (unless terrain and G.4 allowed the DEFENDER to remain concealed).
Agreed, if your assumption regarding A12.15 is correct.As I see it, the only weirdness that results is what happens in F1...
If F1 is not the designated target, then nothing. There is no reveal and no TPBF. The Chinese continue to charge.
If F1 was the designated target, then still nothing happens, but the Chinese cannot now pick another target - they did not yet destroy their target in CC. Even if they could now ignore the dummies, there are no special options given to DDSs. All Zerkies (even DDSs) would now be limited to only KNOWN enemy units:
A15.421 ...If it still sees no Known enemy unit, it ends its move after entering that Location, and the berserk status is removed at the end of that current phase. Otherwise, it continues its charge to the now nearest Known enemy unit.IMHO, the DDS's ability to designate any enemy unit as the initial target of their charge, does not grant them the ability to alter this last sentence of A15.421. But having said this, I still think not removing the dummies ("in CC") during the MPh means that the Chinese cannot now designate a new target (they are presumably still preoccupied with the enemy they think is hiding in their Location).
If F1 was targeted, but had a concealed SMC instead, the same thing would happen, and - I guess - the Chinese would Return to Normal, unless the SMC chose to reveal itself. If it reveals itself during the MPh, an OVR situation would develop - in which case the resulting CC could trigger a Return to Normal:
Q. (A15.432) May a berserk MMC conduct an Infantry OVR (A4.15)?
A. Yes, and A4.152 applies automatically. That is, the MMC is subject to neither the NTC nor the increased MF expenditure normally required for an Infantry OVR, and the SMC does not have the option to enter another Location. If it eliminates the SMC, the MMC returns to normal (A15.46) and may continue its MPh if otherwise able and allowed to do so. [An90; An95w; An96; Mw]
If G2 or H2 was the original target, then a concealed SMC in F1 could be revealed just to stop the Zerkies from continuing their charge. Otherwise, the concealed SMC/dummies could be ignored by the Chinese who are under no obligation to select the NEAREST enemy unit. They would continue to the original target.