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.

Formations aren't going away. They're a way for GW to sell better rules, and they can make a lot of money off of them. So what can we hope for? We can hope for responsible formation use at least. My question is: What purpose should formations serve? Should they add utility to units with only one purpose? Should they bring less powerful choices in-line with their stronger counterparts? Should they allow for fluffy armies that are not normally viable? What do you think the responsible way to use formations is? And remember: Don't Drink and Decurion!

They seem to be taking the place of FOC-role-swapping characters and serving as quick patches to make underperforming units work better, I say let them pull their weight. Make a Purifier formation to pull the special rule off Crowe. Make an Ogryn formation where expert training, a crash diet, and specially modified Chimeras make them Bulky instead of Very Bulky and let them make Disordered Charges out of their vehicles. That sort of thing.

I like how they make armies look like a company structure, rather than Captain whatever and 2 squad bodyguard inspecting an armoured formation.

I like Formations and detachments that do exotic yet unique things. The Corsair Raider Detachment is an excellent example of this for example.

The bonuses should be interesting and make for meaningful army options and not something like, say, a Riptide Wing.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I like Formations and detachments that do exotic yet unique things. The Corsair Raider Detachment is an excellent example of this for example.

The bonuses should be interesting and make for meaningful army options and not something like, say, a Riptide Wing.

I feel like formations such as the riptide wing and the necron deathbringer flight that are just 3-ish of a unit with bonuses shouldn't exist. At best, the benefits should get rolled into the unit's core rules, like that one tau tank that gets +1BS if there are enough in the squad (Hammerhead right?). The worst offenders in power level like riptide wing should just get removed.

I'm of the opinion that a formation could do whatever it wants, but models taken in a given formation should have a price bump appropriate to the bonus. Anything equivalent to the CAD is a 0%. If it's good, add a 5% tax to the units purchased. If it's really good, 10% tax. Something spawned in the depths of a power-tripper's fantasy? 15% or more. That lets you have cool, fluffy stuff. And if your cool fluffy stuff happens to be game-breakingly good, you pay points for it.

I'd ideally like to see formations make "sense". A crap-ton of Ogryns with a Commissar doesn't make sense. An artillery group does. A three-of-a-kind formation doesn't really make sense, but the Tau-curion is beautiful. Specifically, it requires you to take one of each FOC, basically, and a couple of troops... something like that, anyway. But it's also really powerful, so it should have a 10% tax slapped on any unit in that formation. Or maybe a 5% tax, and then put additional sub-taxes on auxiliaries, something like that could work pretty easily.

More than anything, I'd want to be able to play a 1500 point game with a core formation plus one or two additional formations. The Astra Militarum formations, for example, are patently ridiculous. The Infantry Core requires the "Starter" CCS, plus an additional CCS, plus 3x Full Platoons [no transports allowed... what a joke] and 3 Sentinels. That's 175 infantry, plus 3 Sentinels, and doesn't even include an auxiliary choice. Bare bones, the formation is 1065 points, for naked Guardsmen. If you add 15 pts of upgrades to each of 20 infantry units, so they're something other than just meat shields, and upgrade Scout Sentinels to have Autocannons, the cost climbs to 1380 points. You can't afford another formation at that point... and you don't have any Commissars or Priests to help you hold the line. You can't even reasonably afford the HQ plus Core formation, if you equip them decently, at 1500 points. And who's going to paint 180 or more infantry, to play a 1500 points game? 6 hours later, your opponent quits at the bottom of the 3rd turn...

So sensibly sized formations are crucial to making them playable.

I would like to see some formations gain a caveat that they can only be used in a multi-formation detachment. The riptide wing and librarius lose some oomph if they have to also have the entire core formation on the table.

Formations are cool, but a formation of two wraithknights and a reaver titan that keeps units from being able to charge the Titan should have a tax...

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I like Formations and detachments that do exotic yet unique things. The Corsair Raider Detachment is an excellent example of this for example.

The bonuses should be interesting and make for meaningful army options and not something like, say, a Riptide Wing.

This. I really like formations in theory. The corsair detachments are full of flavor and allow you to play all kinds of cool army themes. The blade wing brotherhood lets me field my assault marines alongside my sisters without having to pay a tac/scout tax. Really, I think people would be pretty much fine with formations if we just dealt with the formations that grant free bonuses or free force org slots for taking the things you were going to take anyway. I like my aspect host, but it's really not necessary. Triptide bonuses make it easier to spam a too good unit and then make it better to boot. That sort of thing. I'd be perfectly fine with a "ban list" for casual games that simply cuts out anything that provides free slots or rules with no real drawback.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I like Formations and detachments that do exotic yet unique things. The Corsair Raider Detachment is an excellent example of this for example.

The bonuses should be interesting and make for meaningful army options and not something like, say, a Riptide Wing.

This. I really like formations in theory. The corsair detachments are full of flavor and allow you to play all kinds of cool army themes. The blade wing brotherhood lets me field my assault marines alongside my sisters without having to pay a tac/scout tax. Really, I think people would be pretty much fine with formations if we just dealt with the formations that grant free bonuses or free force org slots for taking the things you were going to take anyway. I like my aspect host, but it's really not necessary. Triptide bonuses make it easier to spam a too good unit and then make it better to boot. That sort of thing. I'd be perfectly fine with a "ban list" for casual games that simply cuts out anything that provides free slots or rules with no real drawback.

Agreed. I feel Genestealer Cults did it mostly right due to the mission of formation flexibility and the customization available to most individual units. Other than that, ine of my personal favorite formations is the Helforged Warpack from Traitor's Hate, due to its ability to let you turn a Helbrute or Daemon Engine of choice into a Character. Or if you want, some lucky trait rolls can also grant you Warlord Psyker Defiler, for all the hilarity that entails!

I like formations, I think most are done right, letting up do cool fluffy stuff like tau recon cadre or task force ultra.

some tough..... riprice wing, Skyhammer/librarius conclave .. just took much/ too easy to plug and play.

The problem with Formations is all the Special Rules they have. To fix them I suggest the following:

1) Make their Special Rules to be Command Benefits with all the same restrictions as Role and Choice Detachments. This reduces their viability for Unbound.

2) Reduce their effectiveness to the power level of a CAD.

3) Limit them to 1 Command Benefit plus an additional per Restriction.

 Charistoph wrote:
The problem with Formations is all the Special Rules they have. To fix them I suggest the following:

1) Make their Special Rules to be Command Benefits with all the same restrictions as Role and Choice Detachments. This reduces their viability for Unbound.

2) Reduce their effectiveness to the power level of a CAD.

3) Limit them to 1 Command Benefit plus an additional per Restriction.

IMO, an easier way to deal with this is go back to how it was in 5th ed apoc, formations cost points ontop of their model cost.

I'd like to see formations go away or at least cost something in addition to the units in an attempt to balance the wildly varying power levels of formations.

As they are now, they just strike me as a lazy and confusing way to design armies and a cash grab in the process.

I like formations when they're used to make a fluffy army viable.

Formations right now are post hoc balancing, if a codex is too old or weak to compete toss a few formations at it until you find the right mix. Traitors hate is a pretty good example, I don't think Chaos marines will be taking the top ITC spots, but death guard look more competitive than any CSM have in several editions, as do thousand sons. Love them or hate them formations are responsible for that change. There are other examples like the Ghazghul Waaagh formation, which made orks much more competitive.

There are also examples of formations as a sales tool such as the gladius (buy more marines and then buy more vehicles), but taken as a whole, they are the last best hope of balance in 7th ed. I get that some people dislike of them, but it's a tool, and like any tool it's all in how you use it. Wanting to get rid of them all because you dislike some of them is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Ultimately when 8th comes around, I'd like to see them refactored into something more like the rites of war from 30k, which are alternate FoCs with benefits and disadvantages, rather than list dictating your composition like the current formations.

BrianDavion wrote:
I like formations when they're used to make a fluffy army viable.

That was the goal, but it quickly turned south when they started putting out stuff like the lions blade/gladious formations

 Grimgold wrote:
Formations right now are post hoc balancing, if a codex is too old or weak to compete toss a few formations at it until you find the right mix. Traitors hate is a pretty good example, I don't think Chaos marines will be taking the top ITC spots, but death guard look more competitive than any CSM have in several editions, as do thousand sons. Love them or hate them formations are responsible for that change. There are other examples like the Ghazghul Waaagh formation, which made orks much more competitive.

This would be true if Orks were actually a competitive force (they aren't) and Guard were improved by their new formations (they aren't). Formations are, at best, a sales tool and hardly consider balance or game design in their implementation. Proof of this lies in the wildly differing power levels of formations, which range in usefulness from making gakky units slightly less gakky to making god like units even more god like. Post hoc balancing would be a valid argument if the formations actually, you know, balanced things.

There are also examples of formations as a sales tool such as the gladius (buy more marines and then buy more vehicles), but taken as a whole, they are the last best hope of balance in 7th ed. I get that some people dislike of them, but it's a tool, and like any tool it's all in how you use it. Wanting to get rid of them all because you dislike some of them is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The last best hope for balance is just simple balance. Formations have nothing to do with fixing the blatantly overpowered units, and in fact, make them worse in more cases than not.

Get rid of them all is not at all throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is literally throwing out the gakky old bathwater with the baby left warm and cuddled in the home. Remind yourself we had several editions without formation and they are generally considered to be significantly more balanced than post formation 40k. Its not hard to see why that it is either.

Ultimately when 8th comes around, I'd like to see them refactored into something more like the rites of war from 30k, which are alternate FoCs with benefits and disadvantages, rather than list dictating your composition like the current formations.

This is more sensible. The way 30k does list building is much more in line with the way I'd do things.

 Blacksails wrote:

Ultimately when 8th comes around, I'd like to see them refactored into something more like the rites of war from 30k, which are alternate FoCs with benefits and disadvantages, rather than list dictating your composition like the current formations.

This is more sensible. The way 30k does list building is much more in line with the way I'd do things.

Seconded. Rites of War are beautiful and elegant. And a mechanism to attach your army build to your HQ selection could make the choice more relevant and bring underappreciated units (see: Autarchs, if you can find them under the dust) more useful things to do.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Ultimately when 8th comes around, I'd like to see them refactored into something more like the rites of war from 30k, which are alternate FoCs with benefits and disadvantages, rather than list dictating your composition like the current formations.

This is more sensible. The way 30k does list building is much more in line with the way I'd do things.

Seconded. Rites of War are beautiful and elegant. And a mechanism to attach your army build to your HQ selection could make the choice more relevant and bring underappreciated units (see: Autarchs, if you can find them under the dust) more useful things to do.

Thrideded, Rites of war is a great way to let you play fluffy armies with out a bunch of cheese in the middle and over powered stuff.

 Blacksails wrote:
Remind yourself we had several editions without formation and they are generally considered to be significantly more balanced than post formation 40k.

Only by some. Formations only expanded the avenues by which the unbalancing can be noticed.

GW does not care about their game. This is why their balancing sucks from model to detachment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

IMO, an easier way to deal with this is go back to how it was in 5th ed apoc, formations cost points ontop of their model cost.

If the rules they give are more powerful than a Role Detachment gets or overcompensates for a Restriction, I agree. They are already hindered by a lack of model choice, though, so they shouldn't be punished in a way a CAD is not.

I like formations and am quite happy with them as they are, though I do agree that formations of 3 of the same unit (especially good units) don't really make sense or have a place in the game.

For balancing, I agree that a tax could be a good thing to implement. However, I wouldn't bother faffing around with percentages, take a leaf from AoS' book (can't believe I just said that) and have certain formations cost a certain amount of points, in addition to the cost of the models in the formation.

 Blacksails wrote:


The last best hope for balance is just simple balance. Formations have nothing to do with fixing the blatantly overpowered units, and in fact, make them worse in more cases than not.

Get rid of them all is not at all throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is literally throwing out the gakky old bathwater with the baby left warm and cuddled in the home. Remind yourself we had several editions without formation and they are generally considered to be significantly more balanced than post formation 40k. Its not hard to see why that it is either.

The simple balance ship already sailed for this edition, and short of magic wands we are left with post hoc fixes of varying effectiveness. They can't invalidate existing works from this edition, if you buy a book from this edition it's with the implicit promise that that book is still valid and can stand alone. So they can't just go and change points, no matter how desperately they need it, and Instead they have to put a bandaid on it by figuring out a way to get more value from a unit to bring its value to points ratio closer into balance. Formations are one way they do this, and have been wildly popular, the other way is with direct rules changes like they did with dreadnoughts, which breaks the implicit promise of that every book I buy is valid (Codex space marines is no longer valid, you are now required to have supplemental rules not included in the codex or main book). Despite my well established dislike of 7th edition, we have 6 competitive codexes before allies 7 with war convo, which is way more than in previous editions, where if you weren't the top 3 you could go pound sand. So it isn't all doom and gloom on the balance front, and formations have a role to play in that.

Still bring on 8th we have more FAQ/errata than most similar systems have rules, and that absurd complexity stops people from getting into the hobby, and stops balance changes from being simple. Like take the balance disparity between plasma and Grav, what if you got rid of gets hot for plasma, that would make it much more viable even preferable in certain situations. But there are dozens of plasma weapons spread across the codices of the imperium, do you do it for all of them, and if not what criteria do you use to determine which gets the buff?

 Blacksails wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Formations right now are post hoc balancing, if a codex is too old or weak to compete toss a few formations at it until you find the right mix. Traitors hate is a pretty good example, I don't think Chaos marines will be taking the top ITC spots, but death guard look more competitive than any CSM have in several editions, as do thousand sons. Love them or hate them formations are responsible for that change. There are other examples like the Ghazghul Waaagh formation, which made orks much more competitive.

This would be true if Orks were actually a competitive force (they aren't) and Guard were improved by their new formations (they aren't). Formations are, at best, a sales tool and hardly consider balance or game design in their implementation. Proof of this lies in the wildly differing power levels of formations, which range in usefulness from making gakky units slightly less gakky to making god like units even more god like. Post hoc balancing would be a valid argument if the formations actually, you know, balanced things.

There are also examples of formations as a sales tool such as the gladius (buy more marines and then buy more vehicles), but taken as a whole, they are the last best hope of balance in 7th ed. I get that some people dislike of them, but it's a tool, and like any tool it's all in how you use it. Wanting to get rid of them all because you dislike some of them is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The last best hope for balance is just simple balance. Formations have nothing to do with fixing the blatantly overpowered units, and in fact, make them worse in more cases than not.

Get rid of them all is not at all throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is literally throwing out the gakky old bathwater with the baby left warm and cuddled in the home. Remind yourself we had several editions without formation and they are generally considered to be significantly more balanced than post formation 40k. Its not hard to see why that it is either.

Ultimately when 8th comes around, I'd like to see them refactored into something more like the rites of war from 30k, which are alternate FoCs with benefits and disadvantages, rather than list dictating your composition like the current formations.

This is more sensible. The way 30k does list building is much more in line with the way I'd do things.

no it really is throwing the baby out with the bath water. formations haver soem big advantages to them, and most of the problems with formations, are caused by the same type of people who abused standard force orginization slots and broke the game before formations existed.

BrianDavion wrote:
no it really is throwing the baby out with the bath water. formations haver soem big advantages to them, and most of the problems with formations, are caused by the same type of people who abused standard force orginization slots and broke the game before formations existed.

This. Formations haven't done anything that haven't already been done by Special Characters or even just basic units in previous editions.

The unbalance exists because GW doesn't think of Warhammer as a game one would want to be competitive with, so balance is unimportant.

BrianDavion wrote:

no it really is throwing the baby out with the bath water. formations haver soem big advantages to them, and most of the problems with formations, are caused by the same type of people who abused standard force orginization slots and broke the game before formations existed.

It really isn't in any sense. We had a functional game without formations. Throwing them out would leave it as a functional game, which, you know, is not throwing out the baby in the metaphor. It would metaphorically be throwing out just the bath water.

Formations don't have any advantage that couldn't be done through force org manipulations and rites of war style modifiers but would do away with the stacking of USRs for no real cost. They aren't any more or less fluffy, and they add an unnecessary layer of bloat and complexity that adds zero tactical depth all the while creating even more balance issues.

And finally, blaming the players is just about the weakest argument you could make. The problems with formations exist entirely outside player actions, and blaming players reeks completely of you declaring some people are having fun the wrong way.

 Blacksails wrote:
It really isn't in any sense. We had a functional game without formations. Throwing them out would leave it as a functional game, which, you know, is not throwing out the baby in the metaphor. It would metaphorically be throwing out just the bath water.

We have just as functional a game with Formations as without them. It's just as imbalanced as it was before.

 Blacksails wrote:
Formations don't have any advantage that couldn't be done through force org manipulations and rites of war style modifiers but would do away with the stacking of USRs for no real cost. They aren't any more or less fluffy, and they add an unnecessary layer of bloat and complexity that adds zero tactical depth all the while creating even more balance issues.

There are many Force Organization manipulations that were imbalanced before. There were imbalances without Force Organization manipulations before.

The only reason Rites of War aren't too crazy is because the base units are almost all the same in 30K. It's easier to have a balanced game when everyone is playing Codex: Space Marines.

 Blacksails wrote:
And finally, blaming the players is just about the weakest argument you could make. The problems with formations exist entirely outside player actions, and blaming players reeks completely of you declaring some people are having fun the wrong way.

He wasn't blaming the players, he was just pointing out the fact that the people who are abusing Formations now were the same ones who were abusing (insert FotM Army Here) from 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Edition. The blame is on the writers who made the imbalance in the first place.

 Charistoph wrote:

We have just as functional a game with Formations as without them. It's just as imbalanced as it was before.

Pre formation 40k was certainly poorly balanced; no edtion of 40k has been a shining star of balance or good game design. But to honestly argue that 6th and beyond are somehow the same in terms of balance issues compared to 5th and before is a pretty big stretch. All of the balance problems with 5th ed (transport MSU spam, wound shenanigan deathstars being the two largest problems) has a direct and equivalent army type in 7th that got infinitely better through crazy psychic powers, free USRs from formations, or downright free units.

I want to be clear here. 40k has never been balanced. 5th and prior all have obvious issues and balance problems. But the difference between the balance disparity then and now isn't even the same league. We used to laugh at the idea of handing free USRs because you took a certain combination of units, and the idea of free transports was the stuff of late night 4dchan horror stories.

There is no comparing the balance issues that formations have brought with the balance issues the game had before. If you were to remove all formations from the game right now, you'd in fact fix a lot of obvious overpowered builds.

Of course, one of the solutions is to balance formations, but the added complexity of trying to balance all the units, then figure out which units should go into which formation in what quantity, followed by adding on USRs that are all somehow flavourful and balanced among eachother and other armies is simply ridiculous. You could add points costs to each formation, which would likely be the best solution given they're almost certain to stay in the game (and fix the obviously broken formations), but as a houserule, it'd be simpler to just remove them and fix the units.

There are many Force Organization manipulations that were imbalanced before. There were imbalances without Force Organization manipulations before.

Like what? The only one I can think of that was popular were space marine bikers, and Nob Bikers to a lesser extent. Every other force org slot swap were fairly tame and easily fixed if they weren't. And neither of the two builds I listed come anywhere close to the broken-ness of Gladius, or War Convocation, or the Decurion, or the Tau formations, or even just the new psychic powers and death stars that can be built using them.

The only reason Rites of War aren't too crazy is because the base units are almost all the same in 30K. It's easier to have a balanced game when everyone is playing Codex: Space Marines.

Which is certainly true, but the idea is much more workable one for balance considerations. You can still create super fluffy armies, but the nature of rites of war means your army becomes increasingly one dimensional with all the restrictions and forced minimums.

He wasn't blaming the players, he was just pointing out the fact that the people who are abusing Formations now were the same ones who were abusing (insert FotM Army Here) from 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Edition. The blame is on the writers who made the imbalance in the first place.

Yeah, the blame is on the writers. Pointing out that some people will push the rules to the limit is nothing new and only drives home the point that a competent game designer should be designing a game so those extremes aren't quite as extreme.

Anyways, as I mentioned, seeing as formations are unfortunately not going anywhere, the easiest fix is to add a price tag to each one. At least then things like the Gladius wouldn't necessarily be 'free' transports, but simply 'budget' transports as you go up in point levels. Then again, fixing some of those formations should be a priority anyways and no formation should hand out free wargear, units, or transports just on principle.

I still maintain tossing them entirely would improve game balance though, but I suppose that isn't really furthering the discussion on how to fix them.

TL;DR add a points cost and fix/remove the formations that hand out free tangible bonuses like units and wargear.

 Blacksails wrote:
Pre formation 40k was certainly poorly balanced; no edtion of 40k has been a shining star of balance or good game design. But to honestly argue that 6th and beyond are somehow the same in terms of balance issues compared to 5th and before is a pretty big stretch. All of the balance problems with 5th ed (transport MSU spam, wound shenanigan deathstars being the two largest problems) has a direct and equivalent army type in 7th that got infinitely better through crazy psychic powers, free USRs from formations, or downright free units.

Yes, I dare say that. It seems like its larger because the game overall is larger. Super-Heavies are in the game. Average point tallies for games have gone up in some areas, while the model counts of traditional models have gone up. Flyers are buzzing around. Need I say more on the game's scope?

But the biggest problems with the game can still be narrowed down to unbalanced units with unbalanced rules. This gets magnified by being in detachments with unbalanced rules. But it is still the bad units which are unbalancing the game. Good Formations on bad units just bring the bad units up to passable.

That just demonstrates to me that Formations are not the balance problem. The balance problem is GW's rules writing and their craptastic release schedule more than anything else.

 Blacksails wrote:
There is no comparing the balance issues that formations have brought with the balance issues the game had before. If you were to remove all formations from the game right now, you'd in fact fix a lot of obvious overpowered builds.

Incorrect. Right now, Formations and their setups are like Flyers in 6th. Some are great, some are just meh, and not everyone has access to the same types of Formations list at the same time, or a good counter to them.

 Blacksails wrote:
Like what? The only one I can think of that was popular were space marine bikers, and Nob Bikers to a lesser extent. Every other force org slot swap were fairly tame and easily fixed if they weren't. And neither of the two builds I listed come anywhere close to the broken-ness of Gladius, or War Convocation, or the Decurion, or the Tau formations, or even just the new psychic powers and death stars that can be built using them.

They were sufficiently broken for their time as the options to fight against them were limited. They were made even worse when 6th launched with Characters and the first iteration of Look Out Sir. Terminator Troops were a problem with some armies because of their builds.

 Blacksails wrote:
Which is certainly true, but the idea is much more workable one for balance considerations. You can still create super fluffy armies, but the nature of rites of war means your army becomes increasingly one dimensional with all the restrictions and forced minimums.

Then you missed the point. If everyone is playing Codex: Space Marines, you're only looking at their Strike Forces, so balance is easy.

Now, let's look at going through Eldar and their Warhosts. Balance gets harder. Not just because of the rules of the Warhosts, but also because of the rules of the units they are calling on.

Why do the Chaos Marines and IG Choice Detachments and Formations not do as well as the Decurion, much less the Strike Forces and Warhosts? Hint: It's not because of the detachments.

 Blacksails wrote:
I still maintain tossing them entirely would improve game balance though, but I suppose that isn't really furthering the discussion on how to fix them.

And I disagree because what makes them up is far more unbalanced than the detachments themselves are. All these Formations do is attenuate those differences even more.

If we are going to add price points to Formations, why not do it to anything that isn't a CAD or AD? They are already stuck with a lack of options?

Since we have to make erratas/changes/reprints in order to add prices anyway, why not just convert them as I have stated earlier? Change the Special Rules to Command Benefits, reduce the Special Rules to one base and add a Restriction for every Command Benefit after that, and if we don't want to add a Restriction, then add a price point on top of that.

For example, the Skyhammer Annihilation Force has one Restriction, so it can gain two Command Benefits. Let's leave what is in there, but remove First the Fire, Then the Blade. If we want to keep it, we can keep it as an Option to be purchased for 75 points.

By the way, the "Free Transport" thing, is a Command Benefit, not a Formation Special Rule.

How I think most problems would be solved

Formations cost point
None of the following in sub 2k games:
Super heavies
GMC
D weapons


Enforce the following:
No single unit may value more then 25% of the armies total value(transports are excluded from the point cost of the unit, I.E. if bare bones Deathwing termies to a land raider the unit cost would be 200, not 200+ the 250 for the LR)

This stops the spaming of D weapons something that was only allowed in apoc, get super heavies and death star builds out of low point games.

D weapons are a response to the absurd levels of toughness that units can posses. If we want to get rid of D-weapons we are going to have to tone down unit toughness overall. Units get tough in 40k not by having good saves, or toughness, of FnP but by layering defenses. This is because somewhere in the grand ol days of days of 3rd ed, it was decided to keep wounds to to three or less (because after several bong hits I guess the players kept losing count) with some vanishingly rare exceptions. A space marine captain with three wounds and a 2+/4++ save was just about as tough as things got. This creates a design problem, because it's real hard to make something significantly tougher than a space marine captain by just varying toughness. Thus layering defenses became a thing.

The problem with layered defenses is that is that their effectiveness is multiplicative not additive like extra wounds are, using an example near and dear to my heart, you can get a squad of necrons to require 648 bolter shots to get one wound through the layers of defenses and rerolls. I'm not sure I've ever rolled 648 shots in a 1850 match. First thing that needs to go, layers of defenses.

That leaves us with the original problem of how to deal with different survivability outside of toughness values, and the answer is add wounds. however that risk turning 40k into another slog as you chip away wounds on super tough creatures. In order to stop it from being a complete grind fest you have certain weapons inflict multiple wounds. You can see the prototype of this style of a rule with deflagrate weapons in 30k, if it causes an unsaved wound you can roll to wound again. I think that's a nice idea but a much simpler way to deal with it is to go with an AoS style X weapon inflicts a D3 wounds per hit. Now you have two new ways to dial in toughness and offensive ability.