A shooting dilemma in DBA 3.0

And the text in this particular diagram (in part no doubt as stevie notes) contradicts the written rule.

Bob, of course the diagrams are not in the Sue's Book. I said they in Phil's book, as they are necessary for the rules which are in that book. I am glad you agree that there are errors in the rules.

Joe Collins

How about your own example, Bob? 

LH in close combat with Art are forced to flee.  They turn 180 degrees and move directly to their rear, but meet friends they cannot interpenetrate.  Next bound, the Art shoots at them.  They get another "flee" result, about face and charge back into contact with the Art (and another round of close combat).  That's what the rules say, but is it really what was intended.

Similarly, take the case of an element which has an enemy element less than its recoil distance directly in front of it.  It is shot at from behind and has to recoil, so it turns 180 degrees and reverses into the enemy element which it had been facing before it was shot at.  It then turns round again and there is a bound of close combat.  Maybe not an error in this case, but a slightly odd outcome.

Sure Bob... easy, peasy..

Error#1
From MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY
"At the end of the bound’s movement phase the contacting element or at least one
element of a contacting group must be lined-up with an enemy element, either; (a) in full mutual front edge contact, (b) in
full front edge to rear edge contact, or (c) in front edge to side edge contact with front corners in contact, or (d) with no
enemy in contact to its front, but in overlap (see p.10). If this is not possible, the move does not happen. One party moves
the minimum distance to so conform."

Then next paragraph...
"If conforming to a front edge by contactors is prevented by part-element spacing between enemy or
physically blocked by elements, terrain or a table edge; contacted elements or groups must either conform or fight as if in
full contact and overlapped."

One of these is wrong. Either the first is correct... then the second is a mistake and needs to deleted or the second is correct and the first is false.

Error #2
From GROUND SCALE AND DISTANCE MEASUREMENT
“Within” means “at or closer than”.

From THREAT ZONE
"An element or group which is at least partly within or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ or touches its far edge can move only: (a) to line up its front edge with the enemy generating the TZ or (b) to advance into or towards contact with the enemy generating the TZ or (c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move."

By definition this means that an element touching the side of an enemy threat zone, is "within it". This means even the element's side. It is "at"/touching and therefore "partly within".
That element would then be subject to the threat zone rules. No one plays this way. No one has ever played this way in any version of DBA...ever.

Please note that in error #1... Phil did listen to me... but decided the rule was "good enough" as is...

In error #2, Phil had changed the text of the Threat Zone section to correct this issue. Unfortunately, in a later version, the old text crept back into the copy. I spotted it only after the book had gone to print and the error could not be corrected in time.

There are more errors in the rules.

Joe Collins

no advance on that?