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.

Bike rules state that bike count as troops if an HQ has a bike. Do the bikes in a Demi company count as troops if your HQ is put on a bike?

The do count as troops. But it doesn't matter because you're in a demi company, not a CAD

 CrownAxe wrote:
The do count as troops. But it doesn't matter because you're in a demi company, not a CAD

It might matter! Some missions award points for destroying Fast Attack choices, while Death Watch also has bonuses against unit Roles, which this rule changes.

 CrownAxe wrote:
The do count as troops. But it doesn't matter because you're in a demi company, not a CAD

So theyre not Objec sec?

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
The do count as troops. But it doesn't matter because you're in a demi company, not a CAD

So theyre not Objec sec?

They are, but they would be wether they are troops or fast attack. All units in a demi company are ObSec.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
The do count as troops. But it doesn't matter because you're in a demi company, not a CAD

So theyre not Objec sec?

They are, but they would be wether they are troops or fast attack. All units in a demi company are ObSec.

Bad ass. My friend said they werent.

Always refer to the rules of the detachment you're using to see if they include Objective Secured, and if so for which units in the detachment.

 doctortom wrote:
Always refer to the rules of the detachment you're using to see if they include Objective Secured, and if so for which units in the detachment.

This cannot be said enough. And that applies to any detachment rules, not just Objective Secured.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Always refer to the rules of the detachment you're using to see if they include Objective Secured, and if so for which units in the detachment.

This cannot be said enough. And that applies to any detachment rules, not just Objective Secured.

Indeed it was more clarification that they are objesec from two sources. 1) troops from cptn on bike and 2) detachment/ formation - Objecsec

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
Indeed it was more clarification that they are objesec from two sources. 1) troops from cptn on bike and 2) detachment/ formation - Objecsec

The thing is that Troops have not been Objective Secured since 7th Edition started. So thinking that there are two sources would be quite mistaken.

 Charistoph wrote:

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
Indeed it was more clarification that they are objesec from two sources. 1) troops from cptn on bike and 2) detachment/ formation - Objecsec

The thing is that Troops have not been Objective Secured since 7th Edition started. So thinking that there are two sources would be quite mistaken.

Well, troops in a CAD are ObjSec. Just not troops, period.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
Indeed it was more clarification that they are objesec from two sources. 1) troops from cptn on bike and 2) detachment/ formation - Objecsec

The thing is that Troops have not been Objective Secured since 7th Edition started. So thinking that there are two sources would be quite mistaken.

Well, troops in a CAD are ObjSec. Just not troops, period.

Which gets back to referring to the rules for the detachment, which is the only source (barring some special rules imposed from elsewhere, like a special rule for a mission)

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
Indeed it was more clarification that they are objesec from two sources. 1) troops from cptn on bike and 2) detachment/ formation - Objecsec

The thing is that Troops have not been Objective Secured since 7th Edition started. So thinking that there are two sources would be quite mistaken.

Well, troops in a CAD are ObjSec. Just not troops, period.

But not in and of themselves, which means Troops in CAD only have it from one source, not two.

 Charistoph wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
Indeed it was more clarification that they are objesec from two sources. 1) troops from cptn on bike and 2) detachment/ formation - Objecsec

The thing is that Troops have not been Objective Secured since 7th Edition started. So thinking that there are two sources would be quite mistaken.

Well, troops in a CAD are ObjSec. Just not troops, period.

But not in and of themselves, which means Troops in CAD only have it from one source, not two.

Which I believe that was FAQ'd since marines can take relics from AoD and C:SM in the same CAD. Right?

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
Which I believe that was FAQ'd since marines can take relics from AoD and C:SM in the same CAD. Right?

Troops were never FAQ'd to be Objective Secured on their own in 7th Edition. It takes something else to do it, like the Combined Arms Detachment or the Battle Demi-Company.

I think you may have been responding to the wrong thread there.

 Charistoph wrote:

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
Which I believe that was FAQ'd since marines can take relics from AoD and C:SM in the same CAD. Right?

Troops were never FAQ'd to be Objective Secured on their own in 7th Edition. It takes something else to do it, like the Combined Arms Detachment or the Battle Demi-Company.

I think you may have been responding to the wrong thread there.

You are correct. I quoted the wrong thing, my apologies

No, I wasnt meaning towards troops sorry. I should have specified. It was taking relics from a normal SM dex and the new AoD dex and believed GW mentioned you can take relics from both if you wished. That seemed to contradict the quote I was actually trying to cite but failed miserably.

And now your have annoyed me with careless reading.

The quote: "you may take items from both lists." is not permission to take 2 relics. You must take it in context with the preceding sentence ending with "instead".

A single model may take a single Relic(even pre-FAQ, by wording); the second sentence means that if you have a, say Iron hands Detachment, You may take a relic from the gifts of the gorgon list for one character, and then a C:SM Relic for another character. Choosing 1 set of relics does not lock you into that set for your whole detachment. But that sentence, in context, does not allow you to choose more than 1 relic/model.

This is the way rules, and the English language, work.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And now your have annoyed me with careless reading.

The quote: "you may take items from both lists." is not permission to take 2 relics. You must take it in context with the preceding sentence ending with "instead".

A single model may take a single Relic(even pre-FAQ, by wording); the second sentence means that if you have a, say Iron hands Detachment, You may take a relic from the gifts of the gorgon list for one character, and then a C:SM Relic for another character. Choosing 1 set of relics does not lock you into that set for your whole detachment. But that sentence, in context, does not allow you to choose more than 1 relic/model.

This is the way rules, and the English language, work.

Apologies again, I did not mean for one character to take two relics. I didnt think i even mentioned it being on one guy, just simply taking them from two sources.

Ob Sec is not an intrinsic rule of troops...

Ob Sec is a rule granted to certain unit (types) in specific detachments/formations. e.g. troops in CaD are Obsec, or units in demi companies (as listed).

nareik wrote:
Ob Sec is not an intrinsic rule of troops...

Ob Sec is a rule granted to certain unit (types) in specific detachments/formations. e.g. troops in CaD are Obsec, or units in demi companies (as listed).

This has already been cleared. But I dont think you read that part of the post or will read this post.

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:

nareik wrote:
Ob Sec is not an intrinsic rule of troops...

Ob Sec is a rule granted to certain unit (types) in specific detachments/formations. e.g. troops in CaD are Obsec, or units in demi companies (as listed).

This has already been cleared. But I dont think you read that part of the post or will read this post.

TL DR, can anyone provide a summary of this?

Edit: but seriously, I find it laughable that you accuse me of not reading things, when your question could have easily been resolved by reading the rule book, instead of relying on what your mate said.

Your ridiculous attitude (apologies if I misread your tone here) actually makes me regret trying to help you by summarising info that was spread/hidden through multiple posts into my one clear post focusing on the key point.

I tried to flip off your comment with a good humoured facetious come back, but I had to come back and make this edit to make the point that I feel you have been unappreciative of help you have been given when really you should have just helped yourself to begin with.

I'm trying to be as nice as I can when I say this, but in the future try reading the rules before clogging up YMDC with easily resolved questions.

Sorry to rant... But I dont think you will read this post. /rant

nareik wrote:

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:

nareik wrote:
Ob Sec is not an intrinsic rule of troops...

Ob Sec is a rule granted to certain unit (types) in specific detachments/formations. e.g. troops in CaD are Obsec, or units in demi companies (as listed).

This has already been cleared. But I dont think you read that part of the post or will read this post.

TL DR, can anyone provide a summary of this?

Edit: but seriously, I find it laughable that you accuse me of not reading things, when your question could have easily been resolved by reading the rule book, instead of relying on what your mate said.

Your ridiculous attitude (apologies if I misread your tone here) actually makes me regret trying to help you by summarising info that was spread/hidden through multiple posts into my one clear post focusing on the key point.

I tried to flip off your comment with a good humoured facetious come back, but I had to come back and make this edit to make the point that I feel you have been unappreciative of help you have been given when really you should have just helped yourself to begin with.

I'm trying to be as nice as I can when I say this, but in the future try reading the rules before clogging up YMDC with easily resolved questions.

Sorry to rant... But I dont think you will read this post. /rant

The saltiness is real. I didnt know something and posted a question. Whether there was convulsion in the question and its answers that GW provides is beyond my control. I asked a question because I was confused on its sources.

It doesnt give you the right to basically say "read the damn book your ignorant fk". when there are literally thousands of pages of text for this game, and expect to fully understand every nuance and implication or crossed wire.

At that rate, no one would be allowed to ask a question, no matter how seemingly stupid without being berated by other players, all for the simple want of knowledge.

I'm not going to delete this thread. Also, a reminder to be polite, no matter how "salty" you are.

I did not use such loaded language, Soulgrinder. I can assure you I don't think you are ignorant; I don't know you well enough to make that judgement.

Again, attempting to help you here:

You don't need to read the whole rule book for every question. You can jump to the relevant sections (based on your own familiarity with the rule books), or if you aren't so familiar with the rules you can use the index to find the appropriate area.

Regardless, I didn't mean to berate you, just express my displeasure of being accused of not reading the thread.


Have a good day!