Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've seen some recent arguments where people claimed that the artwork (box art, photographs, illustrations) can be used as precedent for rules calls. Note: This is not referring to the assembly instructions that come with your models. That's a separate poll. You can find it here.

I confess, that the thought hadn't occurred to me, personally. Some folks seem to think that is a perfectly valid argument, while others feel that the artwork has no bearing on the rules. What do you think? Is the artwork itself able to provide the definitive proof of how a rule should be played?

Edit: I apologize for the confusion, but this poll excludes diagrams intended to illustrate rules. It is purely referring to artwork.

Can you provide an example of how box art or illustrations could provide data which could be construed as bearing on the rules and play of the game?

Obviously diagrams and examples of play illustrating the rules are intended to be part of the rules.

In a recent thread we had a heldrake flaming a flyer, as I recal.

The picture on the unit entry page, of it sitting on/clawing a Vendetta, while breathing on it?

Yeah, in game terms you really can't have a flyer pounce on top of and sit on another flyer.

Although you could come kind of close to that situation, within the rules, by having a Helldrake do a Vector Strike on and flame a Hovering Vendetta.

In the threads where people discuss whether or not the Quad Gun has to be connected to the ADL, the pictures of the ADL have often been used as precedent to justify people's positions. They have done likewise when discussing which of the ports your sponsons have to go on and which the doors have to go on when building a Land Raider. Those are the sorts of things I was referring to.

No way, art has something called artistic license. Art is also open to too much interpretation

I think there's a functional difference between dramatic illustrations and photos of the models. Photos of the models, showing how they are expected to be assembled and used, may be useful in understanding the rules, as the rules are model-centric, and written in the context of and centered around those models.

For example, GW does not expect that Genestealers will routinely be converted by grinding the lower 60-70% of the model into rubble in a coffee grinder, then placing that around the upper torso/arms of the model as "rubble" or "earth", showing a Genestealer bursting up from the ground. While one or two such conversions may look cool and be welcome on most tables, an entire unit converted in this manner, to allow them to hide completely behind Aegis lines, 1" hills, and other low terrain, would be justifiably looked at askance.

Personally I think this is a bit of a grey area, as the borders between building them exactly as depicted and MFA are a bit blurred. In the case of the Land Raider doors for example, I believe the photos on the box show different placements wherever it's a Redeemer, Crusader, etc. I could be wrong on that. Manns example on the Genestealers is a good example: If we're allowed to build our models not exactly as depicted, at what point does it become MFA.

In the case of artwork and illustrations in the books however, I think that's purely for decoration and has no influence on the rules whatsoever. The Heldrake/Vendetta artwork is a possible scenario if the Vendetta is hovering, but the art itself should not be used as an argument for this.

Artwork, no.

Pictures of actual models in game, maybe. But only as tertiary circumstantial evidence.

Like pictures of Bastions with their purchased gun/comm array not on top of the bastion.

I've seen older pictures over the years, where a codex has changed, but they used a stock photo, where that entry might not have those upgrades anymore. (Commissars are a good one, since their stock weapon have changed) Or models lined up where they are more than two inches apart, so it looks more dramatic . But I do not think a random photo should be in place of the rules.
The artwork, not at all, BFG was good with showing things off at times. The artwork, like the novels, are trying to paint a picture of cool, and dangerous. Case in point is the cover art on the Sandy Mitchell books.

No, I do not think that artwork or model images should be considered rules.

There are some situations where you think "why can't my unit take X when the box art shows that exact combination?" (e.g. pre-FAQ Chaos Terminators or post-FAQ Deathwing Terminators), which may help understand RAI, but they should never be used for RAW discussion.

Regarding the Heldrake flaming a Valkyrie, that's why the 'Drake can Vector Strike.

Since assembly instructions and (presumably) other instructional diagrams/pictures are excluded, no, art is not rules. Art is art, and it's not exactly hard to imagine the artist doing something that isn't allowed by the rules because it looks cool (if they even know the rules at all). Therefore art has very little, if any, relevance in rule debates.

Art is fluff.

Rules are rules.

I'm not entirely sure what you are defining "artwork" as. There are obvious things that are "no" like the stylized hand drawn pictures. However there are others such as the sample pictures showing how a model was painted. Are you talking about both or something else entirely?

I'm also not entirely sure what "rules" you would glean from the picture. For example are you intending that a salamander army *must* be a particular shade of green or simply using the picture to show possible placement of any weapons or using the picture to show the *only* possible placement of weapons?

If we are focusing purely on model assembly, I don't think taking a handful of pictures as the end all/be all of how to assemble a model is a worthwhile cause. GW doesn't show all models with all potential wargear options. They usually only show what they happen to have painted/available to go and those units without model representations are left out with only a drawing or not even that in certain cases (exa: Asdrubael Vect).

I guess in a roundabout way I come to the conclusion that no, artwork is not rules. For the simple reason that no army book contains a complete set of pictures of models with all possible combinations available. If it isn't going to cover everything then by definition there will always be options not listed so you may as well not even call the ones shown as being representative.

clively wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what you are defining "artwork" as. There are obvious things that are "no" like the stylized hand drawn pictures. However there are others such as the sample pictures showing how a model was painted. Are you talking about both or something else entirely?

Both. People in other threads have used both game photos and/or the illustrations as precedent for arguing their positions on rules.

I'm also not entirely sure what "rules" you would glean from the picture. For example are you intending that a salamander army *must* be a particular shade of green or simply using the picture to show possible placement of any weapons or using the picture to show the *only* possible placement of weapons?

Two arguments that have seen people use artwork as the basis for their argument include: which ports the sponsons on a Land Raider must go in, and which the doors must go in, (If, indeed, they must go in one or the other) and whether or not the Quad Gun must be deployed in physical contact with an Aegis Defence Line.

I'm not taking a stance on those rules issues, I'm just gathering data on whether or not the community supports using the artwork to justify a position on a rules call. Thanks for weighing in!

It all depends on what art can be used for rules. For example lets say you have an IG guardsman and you want to give him a plasma gun but dont have one. You could model it as best as you can and when done by artistic definition its a plasma gun. Rule wise it would function as a plasma gun. Now lets say you have canoptic scarabs. For those who have never assembled them they have 2 parts, the scarab itself and a "stick" thing that make it float 1/2" off the base. If you assembled it without the stick so they are closer to the base its MFA which is frowned upon pretty much everywhere, however if you place substitutes like rocks and such to give the model the same hight but making it look more unique its fine and doesn't modify the rules in the slightest.

Bottom line is the only rule I see that art can change is the WYSISYG (what you see is what you get) rule, correct me if im wrong but pretty much everything else is modelling for advantage or just to make the model look more unique which have no impact on gaming IMO.

And as for the land raider/ADL argument ask yourself this: "will the customization of the model give me a slight advantage (usually in LOS arguing) over the 'standard model' " if so that in itself is modelling for advantage and probably shouldn't be attempted/done. Otherwise why does it matter?

For the ADL: has anyone looked at the picture in the BRB? It is depicted as being inside the ADL not attached to the wall so really it doesn't matter, its usually entilted to a cover save from the ADL whether its in the wall or not. That is unless your a tool and put the gun attached to the front portion of the ADL which is just stupid lol. So I think it shouldn't really matter unless your group house rules it.

Gwan123 wrote:


Bottom line is the only rule I see that art can change is the WYSISYG (what you see is what you get) rule, correct me if im wrong but pretty much everything else is modelling for advantage or just to make the model look more unique which have no impact on gaming IMO.

And as for the land raider/ADL argument ask yourself this: "will the customization of the model give me a slight advantage (usually in LOS arguing) over the 'standard model' " if so that in itself is modelling for advantage and probably shouldn't be attempted/done. Otherwise why does it matter?

I think the question is a bit more complex regarding customization. Most customization's that give an advantage also come with a drawback. Taking an extreme example, let's say we have a sniper model and decide to place it on a base that is 12" tall (imagine a guy on a telephone pole). That would normally be considered MFA as you are giving it the ability to see nearly everything on the table. However, it's also a serious disadvantage as no matter where you place it the enemy should be able to shoot the thing while denying it any type of cover save. In other words it's too tall to get cover from hills, trees, etc.

Going the other route, let's take that sniper and lay the model down so it's prone. This could also be considered MFA however there are three mitigating factors here. First, GW sells prone snipers. Second, there are very few places you can put a prone sniper and still be able to see anything to shoot. Third, and most importantly, pretty much anything it will be able to see can shoot back (excluding one shooting under a rhino.. but then the target would certainly get a cover save. I think the fact GW sells models in that position is enough to show that modeling all of your snipers in a prone position is acceptable. Even if you disagree, the disadvantage to the model is such that the "advantage" gained by being prone is of limited utility. Even the ones hiding behind a Rhino would have to be perfectly positioned to get a shot off. So much so that they would be better off to be inside the rhino to begin with.

Getting even more extreme, you could take a close combat specialist, like Kharn, and put it on a base with a 12" radius. At first this sounds like a really good idea. Until you realize that everything on the opposing side should be able to get into b2b contact with it without trying... That base would also make it easier for a large number of models to get shooting range on it. Further that 12" base would prevent most of the army it's in from being able to join a close combat as they would be too far away.. Kharn would become a prime target that would evaporate quickly.

Taking the simple issue of the LR and sponson placement. If the sponsons are placed forward then exiting troops will not block it's LOS (advantage). However, the zone of fire that any given sponson can touch to the immediate left/right, in relation to model position, is decreased (I can diagram this if necessary). By placing them in the back, exiting troops block LOS but the zone of fire (90 degrees left or right) is increased, again in relation to the model position. Looking at a simple base swap which gains the model a few mm of height: it would allow the model to see over certain terrain pieces easier (grots behind an ADL being a recent discussion) but it would also allow those same models to be seen easier as without the raised base the grots wouldn't even be visible.

My point is, most cries of "MFA" that I've seen simply don't take into account what the drawbacks are. Now you can certainly dream up a MFA situation that has almost no drawbacks. For example, modeling the lascannons on a sponson to be on poles 12" above the model, then hide the LR body behind a 6" tall hill... That would certainly justify cries of foul as there is zero drawback and a HUGE advantage.

So, the tldr version:

When evaluating whether the modification is truly MFA or not I would look at whether there are any drawbacks to the change AND if these drawbacks would hinder the model during the normal course of a game. If the answer is yes, there are normal drawbacks, then I wouldn't call the change MFA. If, however, there are no drawbacks but only advantages to a modification of a model from the "standard", then I'd call that MFA and not play.

How does this relate to the OP? Simple: in some pictures the LR sponsons are in the front, in others they are in the back. The advantage of either position is slight but offset by the slight disadvantage incurred. Would I consider those pictures "rules"? No. I think GW purposely left any "modeling rules" out of the game to allow us to try and be reasonable with each other while allowing a degree of creativity in a game that has a lot of things "to discuss" with opponents before hand.

I appreciate your responses, guys. Let's do our best not to discuss the rules arguments that spawned this thread, though. There's already a thread active right now where they are discussing how the ADL and the quad gun get deployed. I only mentioned them because Clively asked for greater clarification on how people were divining rules from the artwork. However, no greater clarification is needed than this:

Gwan123 wrote:
For the ADL: has anyone looked at the picture in the BRB? It is depicted as being inside the ADL not attached to the wall so really it doesn't matter, its usually entilted to a cover save from the ADL whether its in the wall or not. That is unless your a tool and put the gun attached to the front portion of the ADL which is just stupid lol. So I think it shouldn't really matter unless your group house rules it.

Sorry, Gwan, not trying to pick on you, but this is the exact sort of argument that spawned this thread. I'm not taking a stand on the issue one way or another, but the purpose of this thread is to establish whether or not using the artwork to justify rules is accepted by the community. The above quote is a perfect example of people using the artwork as a basis for a rules argument.

To sum up: by all means, let's talk about whether or not using the artwork to make rules calls is reasonable. Let's NOT get off topic by discussing those other rules calls here. (They all have their own threads. If you can't find one, PM me and I will see if I can't help you find one. If I can't, I'll START one. Let's just not derail THIS one. )

Thanks to everyone for being adults and keeping this thread reasonable.

Actually, the side sponsons on the LR & Predator are 180+, on the Leman russ I would agree with your argument, but on the LR they have full rotation as shown on page 72 of the BRB. Putting them front or back on the LR makes little or no difference.