Poorest usage of the English language in a rule - 4th Ed Lapping Round

[EGG]

There are a number of other rules out out there which could be called the worst rule. But the problem with this one is that it's more of a head-scratcher than outright broken.

I've been trying to read this one for a while and have settled on rules-as-written, even though the double-negative then implies that something isn't quite kosher.

---

I've abbreviated all the easy-to-read parts of the rule and copied the offending sentence completely verbatim.

4th Ed

> win the combat
> can then move 2 models forward to increase the width of the front rank
> if the front rank extends to the enemies flanks, can move models to first the flanks, then rear

Models which are lapping round do not count as being within the unit's formation, so lapping round models in this way does not negate your usual rank bonus if this applies.
(being out of formation and any consequences thereof are never formally defined anywhere)

> flank OR rear attack bonus is only counted if 5+ are lapping round the sides or rear
> if defeated in subsequent combat round, returned to rear rank

---

Currently I am reading this as:
- Attacks onto models which are lapping can't overflow to the rest of the unit once the initial model is dead, as would usually happen per page 33.
- Rank bonus is calculated as though no models were moved.

But I have changed my mind a few times. The first part I think I am still 50-50 on.

I'm going to guess no-one else have ever really used this rule, I've never seen it used in person, in a WD battle report or heard of anyone trying it. But I am interested in what the collective grey matter here think of this one?

---

For reference, these are the precursor rules in 3rd, and the saner rules in 5th/6th which this eventually morphed into.
It took GW 9 years and 3 editions to clarify these rules. Then they dropped them somewhere in 7th or 8th as rightfully being just too much admin.

3rd
(Advanced Rules - Wrapping round)

> win the combat
> can then move 2 models forward to increase the width of the front rank
> if front rank extends to the enemies flanks, can move models to first the flanks, then rear
> rank bonus is lost (I think?)
> will trigger panic test in enemy if they cannot turn miniatures to face the wrapping round models (presumably this doesn't include the enemy front rank)
> the wrapping round models will land hits automatically if enemy models cannot be turned to face them

5th & 6th

> win the combat
> can then move 2 models forward to increase the width of the front rank
> if front rank extends to the enemies flanks, can move models to first the flanks, then rear
> models move do count against the rank bonus calculation
> flank AND rear bonus is applied if models are present there and entire unit is 5+

 

[EricF]

I do remember lots of faff with moving models for lapping round in our games of 4th edition. Possibly to the point where we had given up on it in larger games. I think (and this is going back a fair few years of course) that we read it that you got the rank bonus. So the bit about them not being in the formation really just means "for the duration of the lapping around don't work things out as if they are a fresh formation", ie treat it like it was at the start - a unit of 20 goblins in 4 ranks of 5 remains in that "formation" even when it's lapping round. Hence their attempt to clarify things by further complicating things

 

[ManicMan]

I would say:

After winning a combat, and if your unit is already extending into enemies ranks, you can move models from your back row to the sides of the enemy, which is lapping.

Models which are lapping, aren't counted as being in your own unit's formation (because they aren't) but it doesn't negate the rank bonus (+1 if the formation is atleast 4 models wide). So if you somehow have that many lapping, you get the bonus as normal, because it applies.

might just be me.. I don't fully see a problem with the English in it.. maybe slightly clumsy but not really a double negative or anything..

 

[EGG]

The double negative is in the latter part, "does not negate". The clumsy part is the first half of the sentence implying something different to the second half.

I agree on the rank bonus staying though. I did look through 4 physical rulebooks I had to see if this was possibly wording they might have altered in later printing, but at least on a sample size of 4, they didn't.

 

[ManicMan]

.. you sure that's a double negative? sounds perfectly fine to me.. and a checked with a friend of mine and he seams to think it's okay.. you can either Negate something or not negate.. so saying something doesn't negate (does not negate) is perfectly fine English.. mm..

 

[Loose Loser]

Rule is little bit contradictory(?) if rules are explained to the person that is lapping around ( first your models doesn't count for formation and then it connects with explanation that you don't have missing ranks? ). It might be explained to the player that is attacked by lapping models? That would make sense? Zombies can do lapping and all that but I've forgot in which edition.

Maybe got something ( like, just in case ) if enemy unit flank you? So they don't count being flanked?

Might be typo in a sense that enemies rank bonus is not lost like in flank type of attack as lapping doesn't count same as flank?

I'm curious about this rule.