Had a reply from GW RE. Legendary Formations costs (posted here because I know you have discussed it but I can't find the thread) Hope you find this helpful. Here's my question & response.

Question
Does the initial cost of legendary formations include the cost of the 1st company? IE. Are the Rivendell Guard 125 + 65 for the 1st company or 125 including the 1st company (our gaming group can’t agree on this one)

Response
In answer to your question, the first company is included in the first listed points cost. Thus, in the exampleof the Rivendell Guard found on page 123 of the War of the Ring rulebook, the first company purchased is automatically the command company and has Erestor and a banner bearer included in it's 125 point cost. Further companies can be added for 65 points per company, though the entire formation my not exceed 6 companies in total.

W00t! We finally have a ruling!

I'm so pleased to hear that the ruling is not only true to the wording of the book, but also beneficial and makes all of the Legendary Formations worthwhile considering (well, more so than if you had to pay those points AND for the first company)

Thanks, Celebdriel and good job

Huh. Well this is not how it's done in the rulebook (see pages 16 & 17) or in any battle report I've seen.

It is however how the rule is written and it's in all of the battle reports that I've seen. Not to mention, GW are notorious for incorrectly calculating points in their example army lists (particularly LotR ones).

Either way, we have clarification.

I hate to be cynical about this, but I have issues with getting rulings historically from GW "Roolzboyz".

Inconsistent is a nice way to describe their trend over the years.

Thats not to say that this hasn't changed, especially since I beleive that a single person now does this instead of whomever happens to read and answer the email.

I am not arguing the ruling either way, but I do think it is important to keep their historical inconsistency in mind when it comes with GW's suggested rulings.

Like I said, I am not happy to be the cynical snot coming in to rain on the parade, but it inevitable that someone will come in and remind folk of the trend over the years.

Well... getting an email reply is nowhere near being official, it's equivalent to asking your store manager what is the rulling and he can tell you anything he wants. As long as it's not in the official FAQ/Errata document, there's no hard proof for either of the readings.


Well, you're right though.

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League

The point I am about to make has been hashed over before, but I also wish to remind people of the logical inconsistency regarding just the single large cost as the only cost for the first company for the legendary formation

For the sake of argument, lets use Murin's guard for example to illustrate the basis of prior discussions regarding the issue.

You can have up to four companies within the formation. With the OP's GW email in mind, the cost is 110+40/company.
So, for 230 points you get 4 companies of dwarf warriors with shields, a banner bearer and most importantly Murin who grants 3 might and a the lock shields special rule along with mountain pathfinders.

Compare to a 4 company formation of dwarf warriors with shield, banner bearer and captain.
This comes out to 245 points, has one less point of might, lacks the lock shields and mountain pathfinders special rules.

Granted, you can only take a single legendary formation with that name and the dwarf warriors have the option of taking a shield bearer and a hornblower, so its up to the player to decide if 110 points for the first company in the Murin's guard formation is indeed a fair cost.

Myself, I tend to side with the argument that the initial cost is just to have access to that formation and each company costs an additional 40 pints including the command company.

Battlehosts also grants precedence to this interpretation as you spend X points for the special rules granted by the battlehost, then add the points for what you include in the battlehost.

By no means cut and dried, but I think logic defies the ruling the OP has shown us offered by GW.

I'd take anything from salesman with caution if I were you. I once emailed the US and UK with the same question and got back two opposing answers, and as already mentioned, every batrep or armylist found in print or online says the opposite to the saleman, so do you take the word of one man or several, including the games designers?

I agree that I think the response is incorrect. Although I would love to see that (for my own armies…not my opponents! ), it's really impractical of an answer. It would make Legendaries way undercosted and probably lead to armies being nothing but Legendary Formations packed with Epic Strike Heroes.

My recent post on Grimbold's Helmlingas is another good example. In fact it's probably one of the best because it is so close to a normal Formation in both cost and function. The Legendary Formation has no special rules, only one Hero (with the same stats as a generic Rohan Captain) and a banner bearer. The Companies cost 10 points more than generic Warriors of Rohan but have one extra Strength and one extra Courage. The base cost of the Legendary Formation is exactly the same cost as buying a Captain and Banner Bearer. This makes since because that is exactly what comes with the LF ( Grimbold == Captain + Banner == Banner ). And the Companies at +10 points is justified by their extra couple points of stats. So you pay the base cost of the LF to have access to that LF ( Warriors with additional Strength + Courage ) and are given Grimbold and a Banner to go in your First Company. But it does not include your first Company. If it did then for the cost of a Rohan Captain and Banner Bearer you would get that PLUS a Company of warriors with +1 Courage and +1 Strength?!?!? That can't be right.

I don't know why GW doesn't enforce a policy on their staff (including store owners) NOT to open their mouth on anything "official" when they don't have a clue.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

We should e-mail the Rules Boys back and ask them to politely inform Matt Ward he's been playing it wrong all this time.

Looking at the point totals for all the Legendary formations listed in the March and April WD's they all once again have the x + y cost for the Command company.

_________________
"...No other mortal men could have endured it, none but the Dunedain of the North."

And if anyone wants to use that quote on army building about "first company purchased is automatically the command Company" to justify the idea that paying the base cost of the LF covers the first Company, well…that doesn't hold water. The fact is that the base cost of the LF may (and usually does) INCLUDE models that will go with your command Company. You still have to purchase that Company though.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

I agree with the general feeling posted back by you guys as this is how I interpret it, it was not the response I was expecting. I only emailed as that was the one thing I was looking for in the FAQ. That said I would NEVER use Rivendell guard if I had to base cost + 1st Company, just for the privelege of getting stalwart. I could have basically the same unit withthe Elven Cohort using including the Elven commander for a lot less points.

A friend did mention they had asked the same question instore and the staff had given the same response as my email reply. The staffer also said that way people would pick legendary formations to go with their army and therefore buy the figures for them... So that makes sense from a marketing POV.

Anyway do with it what you will. Perhaps others could email and see what they get as a response, and unless it goes into an official FAQ it won't matter either way. (PS Check Sharku's formations cost in the front of the rule book I can't get that to add up to either way of doing it!)

Despite it IMO being pretty clear in the book (ie it's x+y) this is definitely something I was annoyed wasn't in the FAQ, since there is always debate over this.

I don't think anyone is being cynical to be suspicious of the ruling. I've had mistinterpretion appear when one of the other guys in a game studio (a small NZ office) 'clarified' something without stepping around the corner to just ask the rules designer. Thankfully, in the case of that company, jumping up and down does tend to get the matter resolved in 1-2 days.

Sharku's company adds up perfectly. The main cost + cost for 3 companies plus the bow upgrade cost for each company.

_________________
"...No other mortal men could have endured it, none but the Dunedain of the North."

This thread proves beyond a reasonable doubt that 'Maths is teh hard'!

You're right - I forgot to add the bows

you're right too... I'll be quiet now

I agree Murin's Guard feels underpriced without adding cost for the first company.

However Erkenbrand's Riders seem to confirm GW's response to the OP, their initial cost is 115 (75 for Erkenbrand + 40 for a company) and each additional company at 40. On the other hand they do seem to get a free banner bearer, so like Murin's Guard they are also underpriced, but without the company cost and the banner bearer included it would be 110 and not 115. So either the initial points cost for Erkenbrand's Riders is wrong, or GW's ruling is correct.

Personally i'd play initial cost also includes first company cost, even though it seems to throw up some anomolies.

_________________
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?" - Gandalf