I am leaning back toward MajorDomo's interpretation above; that A15.431 confirms that berzerkers strip concealment per A12.15. It just makes more sense for me. Otherwise the design effect is to make an exception that really only applies to the very rare situations I outlined above.
I am still favoring my analysis above (post #19), but I believe the term of art is "YMMV." While it confusing as presented, I don't think that A15.431 contradicts A12.15 (I don't see contradictions in
any of this, really):
A15.431 ...Similarly, if [a Berserk unit] moves into a concealed enemy's Location and reveals it (12.15) while charging another unit, the berserker must remain in this hex and attempt to eliminate all enemy units therein instead.
A12.15 DETECTION: ...Whenever a non-berserk enemy infantry/non-charging Cavalry unit attempts to move into a Location containing a concealed unit during the MPh [EXC: Bypass (12.151) ], the DEFENDER must immediately reveal at least one concealed unit in that Location and thereby force the moving unit back (even from a Wire Location) to the last Location occupied before entering his Location [EXC: units allowed to enter an enemy Location during the MPh; 4.14] where it will lose Concealment and end its MPh (unless it goes Berserk first) and is subject to possible Defensive First Fire attack (or, in the case of a routing unit, eliminated or captured for Failure to Rout; 10.533).
A15.431 doesn't say that a Berserker
automatically strips enemy concealment upon entering, it simply refers us to A12.15 and then explains what would happen should concealment
have to be stripped. But as discussed above, there are several cases - nothing but dummies; nothing but an unarmed SMC; or the invoking of G.4 (which explicitly is written
as an exception to A12.15) - that could still leave Zerkies among question marks in a shared Location. G.4 is by no means an insignificant situation. Moreover, in a scenario where the DEFENDER is granted
many OoB dummies, it could be unfair to allow the accidents of a berserker charge to remove them (even when the enemy knows a stack is a dummy, it can still useful as sniper bait and to prevent concealment gain).
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).
And here we agree - I am not sure if the result is by accident or by design. But I think there is both realism and gameplay justification for my thinking: berserkers should be prevented from killing off the dummy stacks
that they should be ignoring; an unarmed SMC would not be inclined to show himself (and could, besides, more-easily hunker down while the Zerkies furiously run past); and Dare Death Squads are given a bit more "free will" to consider a concealed stack as an actual target. But if a DDS
does select a dummy stack, it should be assumed that they at least
believe there to be actual units present. Thus, they won't go looking for other targets. Rather, they will remain in the Location to make sure no enemy - not even a lone SMC - is hiding out in the area. This prevents using DDSs as some weird form of reconnaissance to delete a bunch of assumed dummy stacks.
Here is my effort at the question(s), though it is entirely possible that someone has already submitted (a better) one.
A12.15, A15.431, G18.6
1. Does the fact that a moving unit is berzerk remove the requirement for a DEFENDER unit to immediately reveal at least one concealed unit before the berzerker enters the DEFENDER Location, assuming that G.4 is not a factor?
2. If yes (or no), can a unit which has no FP and is therefore not capable of TPBF (including dummies) maintain concealment while the berzerker is in the hex, assuming that G.4 is not a factor?
3. If yes, and the Berzerker is a Dare-Death MMC who is charging it's target which consists of a dummy stack (and/or units that cannot TPBF as in 2., but can maintain concealment, if so decided), does the Dare-Death MMC A). select a new target per A15.431, B). Select a new target per G18.6, or C). End it's MPh and lose Berzerk status as per G18.6.
3A. If B), must it have a leader stacked with/adjacent per G18.6 to be able to do so, and if so, what happens if no such leader is stacked with/adjacent?
4. If yes, and there is no GO ATTACKER unit within 16 hexes in LOS of the Location being entered, do the units conducting TPBF maintain concealment, with any surviving Berzerker continuing on to its target?
Have I covered all the bases here?
Again, I think my interpretation works within the existing rules and has a satisfactory effect on realism and gameplay. The fact that you require so many questions to clear all this up suggests that my solution might just hold up. But to the degree that we all question the actual intent of the RB here, I think your questions are all on point. Cheers!
and CT Knudsens reply which will take even more study! ... jeez -- without getting into all that (yet) ...
