Sho’Nuff:
Hello everyone,
I am new to this forum, but I’ve been playing warhammer for about 15 years. I recently decided to pick up a Chaos Dwarf army from forgeworld, hopefully they will be arriving soon. I wanted to include a K’Daai Destroyer and I bought a soul grinder and the shedu head from Raging Heroes.
I had a concern about the soul grinder facing because most people are modeling their destroyers facing the 100mm side of the base and the soul grinder fits best facing the 150mm side of the base. I searched the forums to see if this issue had already been addressed, but I could not find anything on multiple sites. I emailed forgeworld and they responded with:
On Apr 26, 2014, at 8:05 AM, forgeworld
Onyx:
Hi and welcome,
good news: Forgeworld is quite fast 
Bad news: Forgeworld rules clarifications are usually a bit frowned upon. I’m quite sure this answer would be overruled on any tournament you’d participate in. If you’re only playing with friends: I don’t consider it unfair to use the 150mm side as front. Sure, there is the burning body rule, but on the other hand your opponent can bring a lot more models to bear against you in h2h.
Sho’Nuff:
Thanks for the welcome!
As far as the facing goes, why must the model face the 100mm side? The description states that the K’Daai Destroyer uses the 100x150mm base, same as the Arachnarok spider model, but it doesn’t specifically relate a facing.
I know most of the time the model faces the first part of a base size, IE, cavalry face the 25mm of the 25x50mm base, but this may not always be the case. The Soul Grinder states that it is on a 100x150mm base for Warhammer Fantasy, but the model is clearly intended, and is shown on the packaging, as facing the 150mm side. There also is no standard for K’Daai Destroyers since there is no official model for reference.
I am not trying to be difficult, but I am curious if there is an official rule that it has to be one way or the other. My initial concern came about because I saw most people modeling their destroyers facing the 100mm side. I appreciate the reply. Cheers.
Sho’Nuff
Thommy H:
Yeah, it doesn’t matter enough to have an effect on anything - every advantage you get is mostly balanced by some disadvantage.
MadHatter:
Yeah, it doesn't matter enough to have an effect on anything - every advantage you get is mostly balanced by some disadvantage.
Thommy H
A bit off-topic, but would it theoretically be o.k. to have a side-ways standing unit of crab-walking bretonia knights? Or is the issue here unique for the K'daai destroyer, since it does not have a model yet?
Thommy H:
Units have to be in a specific formations and have facings and stuff. Single models have a lot more leeway. The sweeping statement in my last post only really covers monsters.
Billy Ocean:
I think you just see most examples facing that way because the models people tend to use - stonehorn, forgefiend, balrog, etc - face in the direction of their body’s longer axis. That clearly isn’t true for the soulgrinder. Obviously you are facing your destroyer towards the 150mm side because of the model you chose, and not to intentionally get a gaming advantage. So I would foresee no problem, not even at tournaments, especially because, as you stated, there is not even a good reason to believe that the 100m side is the “correct” facing.
Also, this is a timely question because it seems to me there has just become a precedent for having a large model face either way on his base. The new treeman has many different options and poses, some of which are clearly shown to be facing towards the long (100m) side of his chariot base, and some towards the short (50mm) side.
Geist:
Let me be then the voice of discontentment. I think you will run into people who will give you a grief about putting it long ways on. First off it makes the one wheel in a charge alot easier because you are now wider than you are deep. This means you don’t have to worrie about clearing units in the path of a charge as much as you did before being narrow side facing. The other thing is, the burning bright can be abused if you are suddenly wider and hit more models. With the right spells off you could suddenly have alot more combat res than you normally would be allowed. Imagine getting flaming sword off and your up against elfs or humans that are on foot. You wound on 2+ instead of 3+ and your in base to base with many more upwards of 4 or more depending on the math.
Now I know no where does it say which direction to face it, but ForgeWorld did say in the book that the model uses the same base as a aracnchon spider (how the hell do you spell that make believe word?) What that implies to me is that you use a model of roughly same size on same base facing same way. Other wise they should have said in their own reference “face it any direction just use the 100 by 150 mm base”. But since they didn’t and the precedent that was set at the time the book came out was face the 100mm side. Then I believe we should stick with that until forgeworld says other wise in a more up to date offical FAQ or GW takes chaos dwarfs and makes a new book.
Sho’Nuff:
I can see both sides to be honest. I think that the model will probably face the 100mm side if and when it comes out. At present, the designer’s note on the base simply states that “it should fit on a base the same size as the O&G Arachnarok, ie, 100mmx150mm”. This does not denote a facing, simply that their base sizes are the same.
As I stated above, the first number does not always indicate the facing of the model, eg, the soul grinder states that it comes with a 100mmx150mm base on the website, “This multi-part plastic boxed set contains 63 components and a 100mm x 150mm base, with which to build one Soul Grinder.”
I know model descriptions on the GW store are not technically rules, but if the first number on the base size always indicates facing, then the base should be described as 150mmx100mm. Also, Forgeworld does not seem to care one way or the other about the facing, as they explained that either facing worked in their email to me. Though they probably would have told me I could model everything upside down on round bases as long as I dropped a few hundred pounds on their product. 
I want to use the Soul Grinder with the awesome Evil Shedu head from Raging Heroes as my K’Daai because it is going to look like some kind of demonic, alchemical monstrosity, which I think is fitting. If I took it to a tournament and I was told the facing would be a problem, I would be more than happy to have the Blazing Body rule only affect 100mm worth or troops on the front facing. I play to have a good time, so as long as I am able to use the model without anyone crying foul, I am going to be satisfied. Again, I appreciate the discussion and the differing views.
Sho’Nuff
fattdex:
Do what i did, turn the soul grinder into a mechano bull centaur with 4 legs and make it run front ways
Sho’Nuff:
I already glued the legs in place, but this morning I decided to break them off and do just this. Four legged soul grinder facing the 100mm side. I may get creative and add the other two legs, but every direction I have tried has made lining up a flanking unit impossible. Likely he will just have 4 legs.
My thought was that I would likely end up having an argument with at least some of my opponents in a tournament setting. My friends wouldn’t care, but some people at a tournament would have a problem with the facing, perhaps rightfully so. Even if I can claim rules as written or get the TO to rule that the facing is fine, these opponents would be frustrated. That’s not what I want.
I made the change and I am just waiting for my head to come in. I may post some pics of the model a bit later. Thanks for the suggestion.
fattdex:
When i did mine, i posed the legs with three segments like horse type of legs galloping in the front and back hip slots and covered the middle hip slots with shields, and made more of a ‘steam-boiler’ looking engine at the back, i think i made crashing claws on both hands, and I have not decided on ahead yet, it is in my unfinished project pile. I’d like to use the raging hero head but i used it on my Lammasu! actually- I have the original head on my lammasu- the one available now is slightly different isn’t it?
Sho’Nuff:
Shields/ armor over the empty leg sockets is a good idea and I will see what I have that could be used for this, likely some bitz from the soul grinder. The Evil Shedu head did have a minor change to the mold. I read that GW sent Raging Heroes a C&D because the head you have was marketed as a Lammasu head and GW felt it was to close in appearance to their own product. The original model had tusks and a nose ring, as seen in your picture. The new model has a wicked mustache, but lost the tusks. You are lucky to have purchased the head when you did. Pic of the new version:
Spencer:
Hi guys! Any update about the future release of the KD?
They old us in the next 3 months 4 months ago…
Geist:
Didn’t you get the memo? ForgeWorld has put all the fantasy projects on hold, so they can go full bore 40k crack.
Novos:
Just got a reply from Forgeworld, sent to me 2 hours ago. (May 8, 2014 7:00AM EST (GMT -5)
My message to them:
Hi there!
First and foremost, love your work. Keep up the greatness. Although not a 40k fan in any way, shape, or form; your work is gorgeous and I hope to see more of it applied to the fantasy universe.
In any case, on to my question. I know you’re probably getting this a lot, but I need to have at least a ballpark estimate on when you expect the K’daai Destroyer to be unveiled and released thereafter. I’m holding off so I can buy the entire army from you at once, and for budgeting purposes, it would be really nice to have at least a figure that is accurate to a 3 month radius. Obviously you will not be held to whatever time estimate you give, just a ballpark would be nice. The Chaos Dwarf community was pretty hellbent on at least having the model unveiled at forge world open day, if not released. I was amazed that you chose to release the lizardmen monster instead, a model with nowhere near the appeal nor selling power of the destroyer. But alas, lizzies need love too.
Would you have such an estimate? Or are we doomed to wait another year or 2?
Thanks so much for your attention,
- Robby
Their reply to me:
Hi there.
We had hoped to release the K’daai Destroyer within the next three months but sadly this date has been put back and currently we don’t have a set time for this now unfortunately. Please accept our apologies for this.
If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us.
Regards,
Forge World
Suffice to say I’m pretty pissed off… I REALLY wanna get this project off the ground and I can’t because of this BS delay of a model that has potential to sell through the roof… ARGH!
BABIS:
but sadly this date has been put back and currently we don't have a set time for this now unfortunately.
Novos
but they had all the time to release the shi#ty lizard monster... LOL
Novos:
but sadly this date has been put back and currently we don't have a set time for this now unfortunately.
Novos
but they had all the time to release the shi#ty lizard monster... LOL
BABIS
haha I know its frackin ridiculous...
Yodrin:
but sadly this date has been put back and currently we don't have a set time for this now unfortunately.
Novos
but they had all the time to release the shi#ty lizard monster... LOL
BABIS
haha I know its frackin ridiculous...
Novos
I would say that is kinda strange.....
gIL^:
but sadly this date has been put back and currently we don't have a set time for this now unfortunately.
Novos
but they had all the time to release the shi#ty lizard monster... LOL
BABIS
lizard monster looks amazing, Such a nice model.
