I agree with Glyn, especially as I now like to get a whole army together before I paint them.
There are probably more like me who are waiting for ranges to be finished before purchasing an army, I've had enough of parts of armies lying in boxes for a year or so waiting to be painted.

Here's the problem - when's an army ever "done"? I can add to each line indefinitely.

_________________
ONSLAUGHT MINIATURES onslaughtmini.com

Hmm... True. But maybe some kind of certain amount that fills out the basic needs. 8 different INF units and 4-6 different LV\AV:s... Something oike that.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

And a superheavy war engine and some flyers, please An army just looks better with a centerpiece. Not that we care, serious military strategists that we are...

Probably just my little brand of quirks but I get really annoyed by games (mostly computer games) where each faction has to have every type of unit (for balance sake mostly) ie everyone has to have a light tank, an apc, same number of infantry units etc. It looks unrealistic to me and seems very rock, paper, scissors. And takes away from faction uniqueness.

I'm after units to fill out EA armies first, then I consider other rule sets. Agree races don't have to have all possible kit and troop types
Sisterhood pre order still up by end of Dec?

_________________
6mm40K + viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24667

I think you are right, and technically speaking you as the creator are the only one who can dictate when an army is "done." However I think mordeton and echoco both bring up good points.

If I may, I think what most people are saying is that they don't want necessarily a complete army that will have every single bell and whistle, more so we just want at least a core set of units for each army, with future supplemental units in future waves. So filling out each army with the necessary infantry, armor, air, and potential heavy duty units that would make each army a part of our complete breakfast. I think at the end of the day we don't want an army that is absolutely finished, we want something we can actually play with.

But like echoco said no army necessarily has to follow a set formula of x amount of tank types, infantry, etc. avians comes to mind as the infantry look great, and if that is all you are going for fine, but if you are planning something more I think a lot of us would like to see it fleshed out first.

By setting up core units I think most everyone will be happy because then they can actually play each army. Leaving room for future units however leaves room for future interest in your model range while preventing you from burning out.

On a final note, I think it is probably really important to mention that a lot of us come to this thread with preconceived notions. A lot of us are inclined to view your models as proxies only as they really do fill that hole neglected by certain unnamed companies. I think the more we as customers come to recognize deacon's line as unique IP the better off we'll be. This gives you the ability to dictate the fluff and what units go with each army instead of filling out all the "proxies" we want for another IP's army we may have in mind. Having a ruleset might solidify that.

All I can say for now is that I think you are doing just that, especially with stygians, they are really coming into their own. Just keep up the great work and take everything we as your ravenously fanatical followers say with a grain of salt. Hope that helps.

^^ THIS THIS THIS TIMES A MILLION ^^

What would be helpful will be knowing more about the unique IP you intend to build out for each faction. Every one has a theme and knowing when the core army is fleshed out, so to speak is helpful. Also determining the intended ruleset would be nice as well. Personally I vote EW but I'm not exactly an unbiased observer.

All that being said though, there's plenty (realistically most) of initial purchasing from those on the forum are going to be about filling holes in They Who Shall Not Be Named IP using the line as proxies. It's a careful balance to achieve. It's important though folks to not pigeonhole Onslaught as making Not-Tau, Not-Dark Eldar, Not-Tyranids.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

(Snipped the entire post because it's long and I agree 100% with it.)

Redgeran's absolutely right.

I'm a huge fan of Onslaught going its own way with IP. Already many of the units are far superior to the stuff some players want them to proxy. Maybe it's time as fans to produce stat lines and army lists for them. Or at least nail down a military doctrine. In another thread, I mention a book on Soviet doctrine I recently read, and it's amazing how intelligent people-- all human, all equal in intellect, all roughly the same in technology-- can have such big disagreements about how to structure an army. So I think deacon can be "done" without checking every box of every conceivable unit type.

Maybe that's something we can help with.

Thanks for the kind words and great advice everyone.

I've been working on a ruleset to go with these lines, but I'd love to see them adapted to other games as well.

_________________
ONSLAUGHT MINIATURES onslaughtmini.com

A wise view point deacon, the more games your miniatures can be used with the greater the customer base to support your stuff which should equal long term success i would think.

_________________
Vanguard Miniatures

Link, http://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/

Stockist of:

Vanguard Miniatures
BattleGroup Helios
Onslaught Miniatures
Pyrkol Gaming Markers
Gregster's Lab
Microworld Games
Troublemaker Games

I've mentioned this before, but wouldn't it be better to pool resources with another manufacturer? Say, oh, Steel Crown with their upcoming Exodus Wars system. Your expertise is making awesome miniatures, the skill set necessary for creating a rules set isn't the same.

The background doesn't have to overlap, unless the game gets verrrrrry setting specific (you're both making far future sci fi wargaming minis) it should be able to cover both galaxies. It sounds to me as if you want a rules system to promote your miniatures - why not make one gaming system to promote both lines?

We call them proxies but that's only because they weren't made by the rule book manufacturer. For me the onslaught minis are on par and in some cases superior to the 'origionals'. Proxy can sound like cheap copy, not with OM minis. I say keep making minis to your high standards, at a great price with great customer service (a lot of which is done here) and we will keep buying. For me OM have injected new life into my hobby and hope you continue to do so for many years to come.

I hope you don't get too big a head Dom, just giving you some encouragement. O, and did I mention more Avian 'doggies' and 'Oxes'.

But, at the end of the day, this is deacon's project, his child, and having his own rules for it is what he wants. You mention that he wants a rules system to promote his own miniatures. Sounds quite different from using someone else's.

Besides, having multiple rules sets isn't a bad thing. Choices are good.

Of course, it is easier to just use someone else's rules. But the easiest way isn't always the most fun way.

_________________
http://thorvirshobbydumpster.blogspot.com/

Tau Empire, Mymeara Eldar, Tallarn Desert Raiders

Count me as a vote against an original IP. There are plenty of great minis rules sets. What I was missing, and what I found in Onslaught, are some great minis to use with a rules set I already like. There is no shame in that. Onslaught is filling a niche and giving me what I want. Keep it up, and I'll keep buying models. Space elves and evil guys in powered armor would be great future additions....