Zerker charge vs concealed guys

Will Fleming

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
424
Location
Adrift on the Pequod
Country
llUnited States
Zerker charges a British squad and an 8-0 leader that is concealed. Zerker makes it in in the movement phase, 8-0 keeps his concealment. No one else 'advances' in in the Advance Phase.

Is there an ambush roll?

11.4 AMBUSH: Whenever Infantry advance into CC (unless reinforcing a Melee) in a woods/building Location or with/against a concealed unit(s) an Ambush can conceivably occur. Whenever a hidden unit is placed onboard as per 11.19, an Ambush can occur. Prior to declaring CC attacks, each player makes one dr. If either player rolls at least three < the other, he has succeeded in ambushing his opponent. The side which has Ambush status in a CC is entitled to a -1 DRM to its CC attacks and a +1 DRM to CC attacks against it until that CC becomes a Melee in the next Player Turn. The side with an Ambush advantage may also maintain any concealment it has in CC until it attacks without eliminating/capturing its target. The side being ambushed loses all concealment it may have had. The Ambush Status dr is subject to the following drm even if only a portion of a player's CC force is qualified to use it.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
As the Zerker didn't advance in the Location, there is no Ambush.
 

Will Fleming

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
424
Location
Adrift on the Pequod
Country
llUnited States
Squad was known at the start. Leader just stayed concealed.

So I guess it might be something like "You can have your steak and potatoes or nothing."

Can I just get the steak? Can I opt for absolutely nothing (no steak nor any potatoes).
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
As the Zerker didn't advance in the Location, there is no Ambush.
Incorrect in this situation as the "or" stipulates another condition, i.e. that a situation exists against a concealed unit irregardless of the fact he entered the location in the MPh or entered it in the APh (which it couldn't), therefore Ambush IS possible.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Incorrect in this situation as the "or" stipulates another condition, i.e. that a situation exists against a concealed unit irregardless of the fact he entered the location in the MPh or entered it in the APh (which it couldn't), therefore Ambush IS possible.
I believe the "or" still applies to the "advance" part.

A11.4:
"Whenever Infantry advance into CC (unless reinforcing a Melee) in a woods/building Location or with/against a concealed unit(s) an Ambush can conceivably occur. "

I.e., the two red texts are both tied with to "advance into CC".

Think the only exception is G.4:
"...and A11.19 applies unchanged at the start of the CCPh; however, whenever a hidden unit is placed onboard as per A11.19, an Ambush can occur. "
 

ctewks

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
340
Reaction score
164
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
Incorrect in this situation as the "or" stipulates another condition, i.e. that a situation exists against a concealed unit irregardless of the fact he entered the location in the MPh or entered it in the APh (which it couldn't), therefore Ambush IS possible.
Would the squad be forced to TPBF in Mph and lose Concealment?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Would the squad be forced to TPBF in Mph and lose Concealment?
A squad would. In this case the concealed unit is a leader. I thought there was a q&a that said a leader also loses concealment in such situations, but I have not found it.

JR
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Would the squad be forced to TPBF in Mph and lose Concealment?
It would, but by the first post it looks like the squad wasn't concealed when the Berserker entered.

Also, by Q&A if the Berserk unit was instead doing a Banzai Charger, the 8-0 would lose "?" - which makes me wonder if he would not have lost "?" in this situation as well.

A12.15
An unconcealed 458 and a concealed 8-0 are in a jungle hex entered by a Japanese banzai. May the 8-0 keep concealment?
A. No.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I believe the "or" still applies to the "advance" part.

A11.4:
"Whenever Infantry advance into CC (unless reinforcing a Melee) in a woods/building Location or with/against a concealed unit(s) an Ambush can conceivably occur. "

I.e., the two red texts are both tied with to "advance into CC".

Think the only exception is G.4:
"...and A11.19 applies unchanged at the start of the CCPh; however, whenever a hidden unit is placed onboard as per A11.19, an Ambush can occur. "
Used as a conjuctive, it can mean otherwise which would intimate a change in status or situation. However, I do see that it could also be an inclusive condition. As written it easily could be either, a clarification would certainly be nice as the rule was probably written in the easier "spoken" terminology where it was assumed that all parties would understand the implied meaning. (We all know what assume does).:unsure:
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
The key word is the verb advance, I believe.
I first answered - and edited my post - that the Brits should drop concealment, because of A12.14 concealment loss condition : "an enemy Infantry/Cavalry unit attempts to enter its Location (see 12.15) during the MPh/RtPh."
But I had some doubts - misreading 12.15, which explained how Detection occurs, which does not apply vs. zerkers, as they are not bumped back if a concealed unit is revealed and doesn't say that the zerkers don't strip concealment of units which occupy the Location they enter.
In addition, reading A15.431, the fact that a Berserk unit strips concealment of the units it enters the Location of seems taken for granted in the following sentence : "Similarly, if it 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." (my highlight)
So I do think that the Brits should all lose concealment when a Zerker enters their Location.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Personally I don't see how it could be otherwise - what would "with/against" refer to if not "advance into CC"?
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,383
Reaction score
1,735
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
Whenever Infantry [...] with/against a concealed unit(s) an Ambush can conceivably occur.
Without the word advance, the last clause has no verb. The single verb "advance" therefore must apply to both prepositions "in a woods/building" and "with/against concealed units." No other linguistic construction makes sense.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Personally I don't see how it could be otherwise - what would "with/against" refer to if not "advance into CC"?
Not totally understanding your response here. As Swiftandsure has pointed out a Berzerker does NOT automatically cause a concealed unit to lose its status by entering the location (A12.15) because they are not Good Order. IN your stated Q&A the Japanese though conducting a form of Human-Wave (Banzai) are still in good Order so this Q&A has no relevance to the situation at all. Now if one takes the "or" to mean "otherwise", which it certainly can, the "with/against" (the '/' meaning and-or) is a descriptive of an action taken against a concealed unit exclusive or inclusive of the condition having advanced into the location. Having revised my initial stance somewhat to allow that the "or" may mean an inclusive condition, I'm still not positively sure of the final intent of the statement, "Whenever Infantry advance into CC (unless reinforcing a Melee) in a woods/building Location or with/against a concealed unit(s) an Ambush can conceivably occur." In a tournament setting I would certainly defer to the director, but would certainly argue my point; in a normal friendly game we'll resolve it to best of our understanding or by a dr until such a time as a clarification of actual intent has been made. YMMV of course.:)
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
As Swiftandsure has pointed out a Berzerker does NOT automatically cause a concealed unit to lose its status by entering the location (A12.15) because they are not Good Order.
Sorry, but I have pointed out the opposite.
A12.15 does not speak of the Good Order status of the moving unit.
It simply says that a zerker won't be bumped back if a concealed defender in the Location is revealed.
I do believe that all concealed units in a Location entered by zerkers will lose concealment.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Having revised my initial stance somewhat to allow that the "or" may mean an inclusive condition, I'm still not positively sure of the final intent of the statement, "Whenever Infantry advance into CC (unless reinforcing a Melee) in a woods/building Location or with/against a concealed unit(s) an Ambush can conceivably occur."
I'm sorry but I done see that "with/against a concealed unit(s)" makes any sense (in the given sentence) if "advance into CC" does not apply to it.

Then it would say:
"Whenever"

a) Infantry advance into CC (unless reinforcing a Melee) in a woods/building Location, OR:
b) Infantry with/against a concealed unit(s)

The b) clause makes no sense to me.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Sorry, but I have pointed out the opposite.
A12.15 does not speak of the Good Order status of the moving unit.
It simply says that a zerker won't be bumped back if a concealed defender in the Location is revealed.
I do believe that all concealed units in a Location entered by zerkers will lose concealment.
Well as soon as you get to the "...non-berserk enemy infantry/non-charging Cavalry unit.." part of the paragraph, if the enemy infantry unit IS berserk or a charging Cavalry unit the rest A12.15 does not apply to them. As for the "Good Order" portion of it, A12.141 already has addressed that point, "...causes loss of concealment if that unit is currently in the LOS and within 16 hexes of a Good Order enemy ground unit." and thus A12.141 also does not apply since the Berzerk unit is not GO leaving us with a concealed unit in the location - hence the crux of the remaining question. Good arguments have been proffered to the point that only and advance into the location would result in an Ambush situation but though I can see the possibility of this being correct, IMHO I am not convinced as of yet.:unsure:
 
Last edited:

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I'm sorry but I done see that "with/against a concealed unit(s)" makes any sense (in the given sentence) if "advance into CC" does not apply to it.

Then it would say:
"Whenever"

a) Infantry advance into CC (unless reinforcing a Melee) in a woods/building Location, OR:
b) Infantry with/against a concealed unit(s)

The b) clause makes no sense to me.
You're probably right as I would have to leave that one up to my sister, she's got the Doctorate in English, I'm just an old gravel agitating grunt with a History degree. Not saying you're wrong (see, changed my stance already - flexibility), BUT IT JUST DON'T FEEL RIGHT! (We used to smack the bee-geebers out those guys that ran into us!)o_O
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
A12.141 also does not apply since thew Berzerk unit is not GO leaving us with a concealed unit in the location - hence the crux of the remaining question
Good point.
I presume that 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 whether it uses Defensive First Fire, Subsequent First Fire, or FPF") was the reason that had you not leave the squad concealed, but allowed you to keep the leader concealed?
Wouldn't the leader have to direct the TPBF DFF? Or could that be considered not being a (mandatory) attack?
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Good point.
I presume that 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 whether it uses Defensive First Fire, Subsequent First Fire, or FPF") was the reason that had you not leave the squad concealed, but allowed you to keep the leader concealed?
Wouldn't the leader have to direct the TPBF DFF? Or could that be considered not being a (mandatory) attack?
I feel that the later rule addresses the specific cases allowing the 8-0 in this case to retain concealment. The Ldr should not have to apply his leadership modifier in any circumstance I think. JMHO of course and you could certainly be correct, it could be a mandatory fire attack situation.:rolleyes:
 
Top