Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/03/19 23:53:53
Subject: Need help justifying my Catachan regiment having tanks and infantry
|
 |
Road-Raging Blood Angel Biker
|
I've been steadily working on my Catachan Jungle Fighters 69th regiment, mostly infantry so far. I have built up a few vehicles, I can justify Chimeras and a couple Sentinels, but Hellhounds, Leman Russes and Tank Commanders are a little harder to justify. I didn't really have the foresight to classify my regiment, and looking at the definitions none of them really fit. Light Infantry? Well, no, I'll have elites and a few Ogryns. Armoured? Nope, too many Guardsmen. Mechanised? Not enough Chimeras for each squad, and I have actual Tanks instead of APC's, so I doubt that fits... until now I have been using the excuse that Catachan Guard regiments would probably be a bit more lax with regimental restrictions, however that excuse has worn a bit thin... It's not a big deal at all, but it's a bit of a mindfeth. Maybe Tanks were lent to them and repainted? Well, that might count as an explanation for having the vehicles on the tabletop, but I'm not sure if that is how it works in lore... So as the title says, I would like some input from the community when possible.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/03/20 00:04:03
Subject: Need help justifying my Catachan regiment having tanks and infantry
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Do you have a problem with them being from separate regiments, who fight together quite often? That's the Imperial system in most cases, combine various forces together into battlegroups as needs dictate. So you might have your 54th Poor Bastards and 37th Armoured Knobheads mixed together for the third year running on whatever campaign they were sent on, picked at the same time from their home world.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/03/20 00:10:08
Subject: Need help justifying my Catachan regiment having tanks and infantry
|
 |
Leader of the Sept
|
That’s the route I went with. Elements from different regiments working together in a single division, and formed into a combined arms combat team.
Alternatively, and depending on how much infantry you have, could they be depot security troops? The regiment needs to secure its bases somehow. Even pure single arm regiments will pick up a rag tag of assigned support troops and internal security forces.
|
Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!
Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/03/20 00:41:26
Subject: Need help justifying my Catachan regiment having tanks and infantry
|
 |
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot
|
If it's just a 40k army I think it's honestly such a small scale I wouldn't worry about it.
Maybe they commandeered a dozen tanks from a traitorous depot or maybe an armored company was nearly wiped and the 69th was given their tanks because they were nearby. 3 Russes is a rounding error to the Guard, it's not like someone's going to send them back to the Munitorum.
If you specifically want to say that your 40k army is representative of how the entire 69th is equipped then that may take a little more consideration (though I could still think of a hundred explanations).
|
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/03/20 00:20:55
Subject: Re:Need help justifying my Catachan regiment having tanks and infantry
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
On the Surface of the Sun aka Florida in the Summer.
|
Who is in command of your outfit?
That might help you decide. And if you can't decide, throw an Inquisitor in your force and blame any inconsistencies in the force on him/her.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/03/20 00:47:40
Subject: Need help justifying my Catachan regiment having tanks and infantry
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Echoing the idea that your force, while predominantly catachan, might simply have elements from other regiments mixed in either temporarily (you all ended up being deployed to the same location) or more permanently (you've absorbed the remnants of a demolished tank and auxiliary regiment after showing that you work well together in the past.)
Also, do catachans have no armored assets? I get that the junglefighters are their main claim to fame, but I could still see them utilizing *some* armored elements even if it's not what they're known for. Hellhounds certainly seem like they'd be useful for clearing paths through jungles and such.
|
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/03/20 01:03:10
Subject: Need help justifying my Catachan regiment having tanks and infantry
|
 |
Preparing the Invasion of Terra
|
I mean they can just be the Catachan 69th Infantry and Catachan 69th Armoured.
Not the same Regiment, just the same number and they get deployed together because a clerk made a mistake and put them on the same orders thinking there was only one Catachan 69th.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/03/20 01:03:32
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/03/20 04:03:36
Subject: Re:Need help justifying my Catachan regiment having tanks and infantry
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
The simple answer is that almost any Guard force you see on a 40K battlefield is a mixture of elements from multiple regiments.
Infantry Units: From an Infantry or Mechanized Infantry RegimentTanks: From an Armored RegimentArtillery: From an Artillery RegimentOgryn or Ratling: From an Abhuman Regiment
So don't sweat it. Your army is supposed to be elements from multiple regiments. They just mostly happen to be Catachan regiments.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/03/20 05:31:15
Subject: Need help justifying my Catachan regiment having tanks and infantry
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Not every Regiment has to be just pure armoured/infantry/mechanised etc.
Different Companies can be different, so you could have 69th Regiment, 5th Company who are armoured, and 69th Regiment, 14th Company who are infantry.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/03/20 06:15:41
Subject: Need help justifying my Catachan regiment having tanks and infantry
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
Aus
|
Open google, search "US Vietnam war tank photos", eat your heart out. Nothing wrong with having armour, no need to flanderize them as "JUNGLE INFANTRY ONLY". Hellhounds (or the variants) especially are thematic given they're essentially support APCs!
|
|
 |
 |
|