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.

So my understanding is that if you raise a Regiment from Planet X, it will be (mostly) comprised of identical squads (foot infantry, mech infantry, armor etc) and you add multiple Regiments to a warzone to get all the required resources to wage a combined arms war.

If that is true, should you give you armored, infantry and artillery units all different designations or possibly different camo markings?

If you want to add model variation in your army then by all means feel free to. Theres combined regiments made out of 2 or even more under strength forces sometimes from different home worlds in several imperial guard novels. They don't HAVE to be identical if you don't want them to be. Also you can get specialist regiments such as rough riders that commonly get split up and used as supplementary forces to armies. Theres also rarer formations of all Leman russ, artillery or even hydra flak tanks that get portioned up and spread across a battle group to help add balance. You could even have an entire army from one planet with a company commander you can model as being from a completely different world ( Like ibram gaunt in gaunts ghosts or several other characters ).

So to recap you can do what you like really to justify all your units having a common look or having a non standard rag-tag look of a force that has absorbed under strength squads to recoup strength.

Lexx wrote:
So to recap you can do what you like really to justify all your units having a common look or having a non standard rag-tag look of a force that has absorbed under strength squads to recoup strength.

Would it make sense to label my infantry as something like "Bob's 501st" and the armor as "Joe's 337th" ? Would it be inappropriate to label them both from the same planet, like Cadia who can raise armor and infantry regiments.

It depends entirely on the capabilities of your homeworld.

My homeworld, Ragnarok, has a Forge Moon with a limited STC, so they have infantry, armor, and even superheavies. If they could, they would field Titan-class Walkers as well.

If I recall correctly, the standard is for regiments to be composed entirely of one type of unit. In that way, the Departmento Munitorum limits the possibility (and/or the impact) of betrayal by denying closely knit units from the same world the access to combined arms formations that they would need in order to mount a truly successful offensive.

However, certain worlds like Cadia, Catachan, Tallarn, etc. are allowed to field combined arms regiments thanks to their long record of devoted military service to the Imperium.

So in short, I'd say you're cool doing it either way. Just make sure that if you field a combined arms regiment, your fluff mentions your planet's loyalty being beyond question.

Shane wrote:If I recall correctly, the standard is for regiments to be composed entirely of one type of unit. In that way, the Departmento Munitorum limits the possibility (and/or the impact) of betrayal by denying closely knit units from the same world the access to combined arms formations that they would need in order to mount a truly successful offensive.

However, certain worlds like Cadia, Catachan, Tallarn, etc. are allowed to field combined arms regiments thanks to their long record of devoted military service to the Imperium.

So in short, I'd say you're cool doing it either way. Just make sure that if you field a combined arms regiment, your fluff mentions your planet's loyalty being beyond question.

Well...it's not quite that simple. It mostly goes with the actual homeworld's methodology it seems. For example, what the Cadians consider a "mechanized unit" would be completely different than what a Tallarn regiment would consider mechanized, or a Cadian Drop Regiment versus an Elysian Drop Regiment.

It's all delightfully vague and ripe for exploration.

Thanks everyone, it sounds like I have enough grey space to work around whatever I want and not piss anyone off (which is always important!)

I kinda like the idea of elements of 2 regiments working together.

Hell, I'm planning a combined Elysian/Cadian army as it stands. Cadians for the "muscle", Elysians for the precision strikes.

minigun762 wrote:

Lexx wrote:
So to recap you can do what you like really to justify all your units having a common look or having a non standard rag-tag look of a force that has absorbed under strength squads to recoup strength.

Would it make sense to label my infantry as something like "Bob's 501st" and the armor as "Joe's 337th" ? Would it be inappropriate to label them both from the same planet, like Cadia who can raise armor and infantry regiments.

You can do whatever you want. No one is going to care enough to make an issue of it because it's purely aesthetic and has no impact on the game.

AFAIK Imperial Guard Regiments have to be specialised; infantry, artillery, armour, etc. This was implemented in order to prevent Commanders that go rogue from having full access to all forms of warfare... I may be wrong but I am pretty sure that is what I've read.

Nonetheless, my army is formed of three different regiments, two Cadian and one made-up.

I think it's an awesome opportunity to try get some variety in your army, even if they are from the same homeworld you can have them exhibit different camo schemes (my vehicle crewmen are all in normal Cadian fatigues whilst the infantrymen wear woodland Camo).

In battle it's obvious that they'd merge under a single command structure so I see no logical problems with fielding multiple regiments, be they working in cooperation or merged.