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.

It also addresses making up your own <chapter>/<regiment>/<order>/<legion>/<whatever> and cross-referencing them.

The answer is, unsurprisingly: No.

Not for abilities, nor for piling different things in the same detachment.

But but but, the rules don't say a dog CAN'T play warhammer!!!!

I don't understand how these sorts of threads can go on for so long where one side is so blatantly incorrect that they appear to be trying to hold onto their ignorance through sheer stubbornness alone.

 n0t_u wrote:
I don't understand how these sorts of threads can go on for so long where one side is so blatantly incorrect that they appear to be trying to hold onto their ignorance through sheer stubbornness alone.

I think that some people like breaking down the rules as an intellectual exercise, whilst others really want to break the game for their own advantage. As we communicate via text, you can't pick up on the tone of the discussion and people assume things about other's intent that are incorrect.

 Trickstick wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I don't understand how these sorts of threads can go on for so long where one side is so blatantly incorrect that they appear to be trying to hold onto their ignorance through sheer stubbornness alone.

I think that some people like breaking down the rules as an intellectual exercise, whilst others really want to break the game for their own advantage. As we communicate via text, you can't pick up on the tone of the discussion and people assume things about other's intent that are incorrect.

and others like to do it so they can smugly proclaim they are superior to the game writers because the writers "Didn't anticipate this level of stupidity!"

So rules lawyering is a vast, complex spectrum of arguments?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I don't understand how these sorts of threads can go on for so long where one side is so blatantly incorrect that they appear to be trying to hold onto their ignorance through sheer stubbornness alone.

I think that some people like breaking down the rules as an intellectual exercise, whilst others really want to break the game for their own advantage. As we communicate via text, you can't pick up on the tone of the discussion and people assume things about other's intent that are incorrect.

and others like to do it so they can smugly proclaim they are superior to the game writers because the writers "Didn't anticipate this level of stupidity!"

To be honest, we had world wars because of "rule writers could not anticipate this level of stupidity!".
It makes the whole concept far more terrifying than a bunch of dumbasses running amok in the wargaming community, doesn't it?

 Bookwrack wrote:
But but but, the rules don't say a dog CAN'T play warhammer!!!!

Don't be racists!
Tarellians play 40k all the time.

 BoomWolf wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
I don't understand how these sorts of threads can go on for so long where one side is so blatantly incorrect that they appear to be trying to hold onto their ignorance through sheer stubbornness alone.

I think that some people like breaking down the rules as an intellectual exercise, whilst others really want to break the game for their own advantage. As we communicate via text, you can't pick up on the tone of the discussion and people assume things about other's intent that are incorrect.

and others like to do it so they can smugly proclaim they are superior to the game writers because the writers "Didn't anticipate this level of stupidity!"

To be honest, we had world wars because of "rule writers could not anticipate this level of stupidity!".
It makes the whole concept far more terrifying than a bunch of dumbasses running amok in the wargaming community, doesn't it?

... look rules lawyers are horriable people but let's not go blaming WW2 on them

Day 1 FAQ has cleared this up, you can't do this.

But is GW colluding with the russians? That STILL hasn't been proven false..

 Rippy wrote:
Day 1 FAQ has cleared this up, you can't do this.

Sounds like a good idea...