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.

I like the Patrol Detachment, it allows smaller games so much easier while throwing in a few interesting and not having to take two Troop Choices.

1 Company Command Squad
1 Veteran Squad
2 Valkyrie (Maybe)


This could represent a LRRP or Airborne Special Operations Mission.

Formation were interesting. In theory. Unfortunately, not just 2 formations were broken, several formations were broken to some extent, due to either ridiculous extra rules, the addition of hundreds of points of extra models for free or just down right spamming of incredibly powerful models, like riptides.

Formations would have been great big the power level was equal. But it wasn't. Some armies were left in the dust (like Orks) or supercharged to ridiculously high levels (like Space Marines). While imbalanced codexes were a problem, formations further pushed this imbalance.

Hopefully some resemblance of balance is restored, and people can go back to having fun, rather than min Max.

40K has always been about min-max.

 Freddy Kruger wrote:
Formation were interesting. In theory. Unfortunately, not just 2 formations were broken, several formations were broken to some extent, due to either ridiculous extra rules, the addition of hundreds of points of extra models for free or just down right spamming of incredibly powerful models, like riptides.

Formations would have been great big the power level was equal. But it wasn't. Some armies were left in the dust (like Orks) or supercharged to ridiculously high levels (like Space Marines). While imbalanced codexes were a problem, formations further pushed this imbalance.

Hopefully some resemblance of balance is restored, and people can go back to having fun, rather than min Max.

So the solution to bad balance is to scrap the entire concept rather than fix the balance? There are armies that individual models stat lines are weaker, but their formations are what balanced them. Without that marines will be even more OP against other armies.

I'm also not looking forward to being told "your themed fluffy army is still playable!.....in unbound no points open play BS that no one wants to play."

Buying a few hundred in genestealer cult right before finding out they're fethed sucks. Yay weaker imperial guard without heavy weapons now.

 Freddy Kruger wrote:
Formation were interesting. In theory. Unfortunately, not just 2 formations were broken, several formations were broken to some extent, due to either ridiculous extra rules, the addition of hundreds of points of extra models for free or just down right spamming of incredibly powerful models, like riptides.

Very few detachments or formations allowed for "the addition of hundreds of points of extra models for free".
You had Gladius Detachment(which required 2 Battle Demi-Companies) and then one of the Great Companies from Curse of the Wulfen(I think it was Ragnar's Great Company that allowed for free Drop Pods).
War Convocation gave you free upgrades; but anyone familiar with the codices knows that's just affecting the few Skitarii units present.

And heck, there was even a balancing factor in play for the Riptides(and Ghostkeels). That Riptide Wing everyone liked to complain about? It couldn't be taken in any of the Tau Detachments; same with the Ghostkeel Wing.

Where on the other hand, an Eldar player could take Wraithknights as a Wraith Construct option--competing with such gems as Wraithlords.

Formations would have been great big the power level was equal. But it wasn't. Some armies were left in the dust (like Orks) or supercharged to ridiculously high levels (like Space Marines). While imbalanced codexes were a problem, formations further pushed this imbalance.

Hopefully some resemblance of balance is restored, and people can go back to having fun, rather than min Max.

Points are still in.

Min/max will still be around.

Formations added a lot of flavor to the game and to themed armies. Say goodbye to ravenwing, KDK, homonculous coven, every flavor of chaos marines, ect

Danny slag wrote:
Formations added a lot of flavor to the game and to themed armies. Say goodbye to ravenwing, KDK, homonculous coven, every flavor of chaos marines, ect

I somehow doubt that.

So let's see what we got in terms of broken formations, or "broken" formations:
1. Canoptek Harvest
2. Gladius/Lions Blade (I'm counting this as one because it's the same bloody thing)
3. Aspect Host
4. Riptide Wing
5. War Convocation

To say Formations were broken is NOT a fair assessment and honestly just incorrect. They aren't going to be necessary hopefully with the better balance and multiple CAD's of different varieties. However, you guys ain't being honest with yourselves when you say Formations are broken. There were simply problem formations. Simple as that.

Can you really say that things like Bully Boyz, Judicator Battalion, Ironstriders, 1st Company Strike Force, and Bulwark Of Purity were issues in any sense? If your answer is yes, you're not being honest with yourself.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So let's see what we got in terms of broken formations, or "broken" formations:
1. Canoptek Harvest
2. Gladius/Lions Blade (I'm counting this as one because it's the same bloody thing)
3. Aspect Host
4. Riptide Wing
5. War Convocation

To say Formations were broken is NOT a fair assessment and honestly just incorrect. They aren't going to be necessary hopefully with the better balance and multiple CAD's of different varieties. However, you guys ain't being honest with yourselves when you say Formations are broken. There were simply problem formations. Simple as that.

Can you really say that things like Bully Boyz, Judicator Battalion, Ironstriders, 1st Company Strike Force, and Bulwark Of Purity were issues in any sense? If your answer is yes, you're not being honest with yourself.

This right here is spot on. Everyone saying formations are broken, when your car gets a flat tire do you proclaim cars dont work and set it on fire?

There were far far more balanced and interesting formations than there were OP ones.
There are literally only two formations that give free points and in every single post people proclaim "formations give free points, they're broken!"

Danny slag wrote:
Formations added a lot of flavor to the game and to themed armies. Say goodbye to ravenwing, KDK, homonculous coven, every flavor of chaos marines, ect

Hahaha, no. Formations were a crutch that CSM depended upon just to stay valid because we had the oldest codex (not counting sisters) in the meta, and even then many of the formations were still either cruddy, had the Warpsmith tax, or even with formations were still just straight up bad (Thousand Sons sadly)

There are literally only two formations that give free points and in every single post people proclaim "formations give free points, they're broken!"

Many also use that as shorthand for special rules, either you got good rules with a good codex or you had to pray they really wanted you to be buffed to hell and back and took the formations in order just to give you a legup.

Danny slag wrote:
There are literally only two formations that give free points and in every single post people proclaim "formations give free points, they're broken!"

Free bonuses also bad.

Danny slag wrote:
Formations added a lot of flavor to the game and to themed armies. Say goodbye to ravenwing, KDK, homonculous coven, every flavor of chaos marines, ect

They existed before, they can work without formations. They just need unit rules and point costs made working so they don't need crutches like formations which makes just balancing things harder.

If units aren't working on their own that's problem because...well there would be no point taking ravenwing WITHOUT formation which is stupid. If they are working on their own formation rules just make them too good for points giving extra rules not accounted in point cost.

This is the best of all messages about the new edition.
Otherwise, I'm sceptical. GW always tries to invent the wheel anew.
"Look our new rules are great." They definitely aren't. They are just different.

tneva82 wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
There are literally only two formations that give free points and in every single post people proclaim "formations give free points, they're broken!"

Free bonuses also bad.

Danny slag wrote:
Formations added a lot of flavor to the game and to themed armies. Say goodbye to ravenwing, KDK, homonculous coven, every flavor of chaos marines, ect

They existed before, they can work without formations. They just need unit rules and point costs made working so they don't need crutches like formations which makes just balancing things harder.

If units aren't working on their own that's problem because...well there would be no point taking ravenwing WITHOUT formation which is stupid. If they are working on their own formation rules just make them too good for points giving extra rules not accounted in point cost.

Everything had a free bonus though. The bonus with the CAD is that your Scatterbikes scored better than everyone else. The bonus with an Allied Detachment is that you pay a minimal troop tax to get the other 4 slots you need.

Free rules is not the only way to judge a free bonus. The free bonus will always exist until you make everyone follow the CAD and no exceptions. Quite frankly, that's dull as a 4th edition and beyond veteran.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
Formations added a lot of flavor to the game and to themed armies. Say goodbye to ravenwing, KDK, homonculous coven, every flavor of chaos marines, ect

Hahaha, no. Formations were a crutch that CSM depended upon just to stay valid because we had the oldest codex (not counting sisters) in the meta, and even then many of the formations were still either cruddy, had the Warpsmith tax, or even with formations were still just straight up bad (Thousand Sons sadly)

There are literally only two formations that give free points and in every single post people proclaim "formations give free points, they're broken!"

Many also use that as shorthand for special rules, either you got good rules with a good codex or you had to pray they really wanted you to be buffed to hell and back and took the formations in order just to give you a legup.

Explain to me how rules on a detachment are any different than rules on a unit.
This is disconnected logic that a lot of people say but I don't know if anyone stopped to think about how little sense that makes.
So if you get your special rule from your unit entry it's fine, but if it's from a unit of units entry it's heresy.
How is it any more "free" than the special rules you get elsewhere?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
There are literally only two formations that give free points and in every single post people proclaim "formations give free points, they're broken!"

Free bonuses also bad.

Danny slag wrote:
Formations added a lot of flavor to the game and to themed armies. Say goodbye to ravenwing, KDK, homonculous coven, every flavor of chaos marines, ect

They existed before, they can work without formations. They just need unit rules and point costs made working so they don't need crutches like formations which makes just balancing things harder.

If units aren't working on their own that's problem because...well there would be no point taking ravenwing WITHOUT formation which is stupid. If they are working on their own formation rules just make them too good for points giving extra rules not accounted in point cost.

Every bonus is a free bonus. Do you have to pay points per model for atsknf? How many points does combat squading cost? You're drawing an arbitrary line where none exists between rules you think are free and ones you think aren't. There's no difference only one you imagine.

And how exactly does fixing the balance of stats make a bike themed white scars army possible in a cad? How do genestealer cults work without cult insurrection?

Rules on a detachment often take no account of either unit or model count or unit type, and rules on a unit can be directly costed and attributed in a far more appropriate fashion and attributed directly where most appropriate. Even in places where there is very explicit unit type and count, free bonuses still are just bad game design, there's no trade-off for those gains.

Likewise, themed armies existed just fine before Formations. Ravenwing and themed Legion armies were played through many editions before Formations ever appeared. The idea that themed armies will die with no Formations is, well, ridiculous.

Formations were both bad and lazy game design, a marketing sales mechanism to push bundles to the lowest common denominator through free stuff and power creep under the guise of "theme", nothing more.

Explain to me how rules on a detachment are any different than rules on a unit.
This is disconnected logic that a lot of people say but I don't know if anyone stopped to think about how little sense that makes.
So if you get your special rule from your unit entry it's fine, but if it's from a unit of units entry it's heresy.
How is it any more "free" than the special rules you get elsewhere?

Because one is free and not tied to the unit in any way aside from the fact that the unit appears in the formation. It's not disconnected logic so much as one looking at the whole rather then at the specific benefits.

I see you didn't mention the CSM stuff in anyway however hmhm. Themed armies have survived long before formations and will continue to do so even without special benefits from formations. Did you think Deathwing and Ravenwing only existed once they added the formations?

How do genestealer cults work without cult insurrection?

How about by balancing genestealer cults at the base level rather then requiring a crutch. Seriously what sort of question is this?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Rules on a detachment often take no account of either unit or model count or unit type, and rules on a unit can be directly costed and attributed in a far more appropriate fashion and attributed directly where most appropriate. Even in places where there is very explicit unit type and count, free bonuses still are just bad game design, there's no trade-off for those gains.

Likewise, themed armies existed just fine before Formations. Ravenwing and themed Legion armies were played through many editions before Formations ever appeared. The idea that themed armies will die with no Formations is, well, ridiculous.

Formations were both bad and lazy game design, a marketing sales mechanism to push bundles to the lowest common denominator through free stuff and power creep under the guise of "theme", nothing more.

I'm not saying themed armies are going to die and I'm fine with no formations whilst better balance can be achieved. However, in my post I am saying a grand total of FIVE formations were broken in any way, shape, or form.

They were not bad in 6th where you got one to the CAD. I think that's the way it should've stayed but I didn't care about taking multiples now.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Explain to me how rules on a detachment are any different than rules on a unit.
This is disconnected logic that a lot of people say but I don't know if anyone stopped to think about how little sense that makes.
So if you get your special rule from your unit entry it's fine, but if it's from a unit of units entry it's heresy.
How is it any more "free" than the special rules you get elsewhere?

Because one is free and not tied to the unit in any way aside from the fact that the unit appears in the formation. It's not disconnected logic so much as one looking at the whole rather then at the specific benefits.

I see you didn't mention the CSM stuff in anyway however hmhm. Themed armies have survived long before formations and will continue to do so even without special benefits from formations. Did you think Deathwing and Ravenwing only existed once they added the formations?

How do genestealer cults work without cult insurrection?

How about by balancing genestealer cults at the base level rather then requiring a crutch. Seriously what sort of question is this?

Do you like pretending those themed armies didn't require their own formations and supplements they were just called force org charts and army wide special rules if you used those force org charts? Because your point fails if we don't pretend those didn't exist.

Again you all are creating arbitrary lines in your heads that don't exist. If you had never played before formations you'd not think of them as "free bonuses" just like how you don't think of combat squading as a "free bonus" because it's been around so long.

As for GSC. Cult insurrection isn't a crutch its a way to allow a different playstyle. I don't want every army to be a different color of space marines, b cause if they don't play like marines it's "a crutch." No it's a cool and unique force, because things do exist outside of imperium armies and people like that, as hard as that is for you to grasp.

Danny Slag:

You are still going to be able to make customized, themed armies.

You just won't be able to auto-win because you fielded them.

 Traditio wrote:
Danny Slag:

You are still going to be able to make customized, themed armies.

You just won't be able to auto-win because you fielded them.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] Those aren't synonyms and that's one formation. But like a large bulk of players you're stuck just talking bout one single formation.

How auto win is KDK, GSC, ravenwing, homonculis cults, etc?

Do you like pretending those themed armies didn't require their own formations and supplements they were just called force org charts and army wide special rules if you used those force org charts?

Things that once again came long after themed armies existed . I can certainly tell you started playing after 5th. Even back in 3.5 when Chaos had it's own themed forces that were basically "Alternate Force Org Charts" they had requirements and penalties for taking such... And never really provided free benefits because you still had to pay for things.

Because your point fails if we don't pretend those didn't exist.

Not even close, but keep trying.

If you had never played before formations you'd not think of them as "free bonuses" just like how you don't think of combat squading as a "free bonus" because it's been around so long.

This.. This isn't even a point.

How auto win is KDK, GSC, ravenwing, homonculis cults, etc?

Still didn't answer my questions before on this, like how I pointed out you mentioned Cult Insurrection is needed rather then just balancing, how CSM is just being bolstered up rather then needing balance.. So going to answer me?

As for GSC. Cult insurrection isn't a crutch its a way to allow a different playstyle.

How do genestealer cults work without cult insurrection?

It seems like your answers don't agree with each other.

I don't want every army to be a different color of space marines, b cause if they don't play like marines it's "a crutch."

What.. using a standard CAD is "playing like marines?"

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Do you like pretending those themed armies didn't require their own formations and supplements they were just called force org charts and army wide special rules if you used those force org charts?

Things that once again came long after themed armies existed . I can certainly tell you started playing after 5th. Even back in 3.5 when Chaos had it's own themed forces that were basically "Alternate Force Org Charts" they had requirements and penalties for taking such... And never really provided free benefits because you still had to pay for things.

Because your point fails if we don't pretend those didn't exist.

Not even close, but keep trying.

If you had never played before formations you'd not think of them as "free bonuses" just like how you don't think of combat squading as a "free bonus" because it's been around so long.

This.. This isn't even a point.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]. I know you're stuck in this limited mibdset that anything you feel is free is free and anything you don't feel as free isn't free.

Danny slag wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Do you like pretending those themed armies didn't require their own formations and supplements they were just called force org charts and army wide special rules if you used those force org charts?

Things that once again came long after themed armies existed . I can certainly tell you started playing after 5th. Even back in 3.5 when Chaos had it's own themed forces that were basically "Alternate Force Org Charts" they had requirements and penalties for taking such... And never really provided free benefits because you still had to pay for things.

Because your point fails if we don't pretend those didn't exist.

Not even close, but keep trying.

If you had never played before formations you'd not think of them as "free bonuses" just like how you don't think of combat squading as a "free bonus" because it's been around so long.

This.. This isn't even a point.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]. I know you're stuck in this limited mibdset that anything you feel is free is free and anything you don't feel as free isn't free.

Yeah I think we're done here.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Do you like pretending those themed armies didn't require their own formations and supplements they were just called force org charts and army wide special rules if you used those force org charts?

Things that once again came long after themed armies existed . I can certainly tell you started playing after 5th. Even back in 3.5 when Chaos had it's own themed forces that were basically "Alternate Force Org Charts" they had requirements and penalties for taking such... And never really provided free benefits because you still had to pay for things.

Because your point fails if we don't pretend those didn't exist.

Not even close, but keep trying.

If you had never played before formations you'd not think of them as "free bonuses" just like how you don't think of combat squading as a "free bonus" because it's been around so long.

This.. This isn't even a point.

How auto win is KDK, GSC, ravenwing, homonculis cults, etc?

Still didn't answer my questions before on this, like how I pointed out you mentioned Cult Insurrection is needed rather then just balancing, how CSM is just being bolstered up rather then needing balance.. So going to answer me?

As for GSC. Cult insurrection isn't a crutch its a way to allow a different playstyle.

How do genestealer cults work without cult insurrection?

It seems like your answers don't agree with each other.

I don't want every army to be a different color of space marines, b cause if they don't play like marines it's "a crutch."

What.. using a standard CAD is "playing like marines?"

The fact that you can't see the difference between a rule being part of an armies playstyle that doesn't work without it and a crutch shows [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]. So is deep-strike a crutch for militarum temptestus? you'd seem to be saying so, better get rid of deep-strike for armies that fluff wise are about fast insertion, it's a crutch. while we're at it, get rid of drop pods, those are a crutch for marines, not a playstyle choice, totally a crutch.
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius].

Danny slag wrote:
As for GSC. Cult insurrection isn't a crutch its a way to allow a different playstyle. I don't want every army to be a different color of space marines, b cause if they don't play like marines it's "a crutch." No it's a cool and unique force, because things do exist outside of imperium armies and people like that, as hard as that is for you to grasp.

So howabout giving those abilities to units appropriately costed? This way you can have same units as before. But imagine this: You aren't limited to using them in their formation! You can actually do something more interesting with different armies looking different as they aren't limited to just same build.

If they are so dependant on their formation benefits then that just tells the unit rules suck and need a crutch. Howabout if you try to field those units without formation? Yes that's right they will suck then...Which just shows unit rules are badly designed.

You may want to review the forum rules.

The fact that you can't see the difference between a rule being part of an armies playstyle that doesn't work without it and a crutch shows you're obviously downs. So is deep-strike a crutch for militarum temptestus? you'd seem to be saying so, better get rid of deep-strike for armies that fluff wise are about fast insertion, it's a crutch. while we're at it, get rid of drop pods, those are a crutch for marines, not a playstyle choice, totally a crutch.
your logic is garbage.

Drop pods are paid for, MT pay for them within the unit rules or armywide special rules.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Rules on a detachment often take no account of either unit or model count or unit type, and rules on a unit can be directly costed and attributed in a far more appropriate fashion and attributed directly where most appropriate. Even in places where there is very explicit unit type and count, free bonuses still are just bad game design, there's no trade-off for those gains.

Likewise, themed armies existed just fine before Formations. Ravenwing and themed Legion armies were played through many editions before Formations ever appeared. The idea that themed armies will die with no Formations is, well, ridiculous.

Formations were both bad and lazy game design, a marketing sales mechanism to push bundles to the lowest common denominator through free stuff and power creep under the guise of "theme", nothing more.

I'm not saying themed armies are going to die and I'm fine with no formations whilst better balance can be achieved. However, in my post I am saying a grand total of FIVE formations were broken in any way, shape, or form.

Hrm, I would argue that we could add more to that list (Skyhammer, Decurion (seriously...when was the last time you saw a non-Decurion Necron army?), Librarian conclave, etc.)

Ultimately however, the "buy X, get free Y", coupled with the issues of multiple detachments and allies, unintended synergies, etc, really just makes the entire fundamental concept way uglier than it's worth. That's really the big issue.

They were not bad in 6th where you got one to the CAD. I think that's the way it should've stayed but I didn't care about taking multiples now.

IIRC only one formation actually came out in 6th, and very late in 6th, just six months or so before 7E, the Tau firebase cadre thing if I'm not mistaken (I could be, if so, feel free to correct me). Even that was an issue, getting a number of special rules while paying nothing for them and getting access to extra Riptides and Broadsides (essentially offering addiitonal HS/FA slots) over opponents that didn't have that option.

tneva82 wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
As for GSC. Cult insurrection isn't a crutch its a way to allow a different playstyle. I don't want every army to be a different color of space marines, b cause if they don't play like marines it's "a crutch." No it's a cool and unique force, because things do exist outside of imperium armies and people like that, as hard as that is for you to grasp.

So howabout giving those abilities to units appropriately costed? This way you can have same units as before. But imagine this: You aren't limited to using them in their formation! You can actually do something more interesting with different armies looking different as they aren't limited to just same build.

that's a valid question.

But the problem there is there's now downside, so if you have to give every unit every possible rule that might make it work for a different playstyle, that throws balance totally off.

With formations in order to unlock certain themes you are also restricted in what you can take.

I'll use the GSC analogy.

You could play a horde infantry army with the brood cycle, the rules for that formation facilitate that as do the unit choices.
If you want more of a mechanized army you can use the cavilcade for bonuses to vehicles but have to take transports for your trooops.

If we instead gave all of those units all those rules by default, you'd be giving a huge pile of special rules to those units. Every GSO unit would have furious rage, fnp, vehicles all get outflank, ect ect ect.

So the formations are a more balanced was to allow for themed armies than giving every unit every rule they may or may need to play the various themes.on? Yes that's right they will suck then...Which just shows unit rules are badly designed.

Danny slag wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
As for GSC. Cult insurrection isn't a crutch its a way to allow a different playstyle. I don't want every army to be a different color of space marines, b cause if they don't play like marines it's "a crutch." No it's a cool and unique force, because things do exist outside of imperium armies and people like that, as hard as that is for you to grasp.

So howabout giving those abilities to units appropriately costed? This way you can have same units as before. But imagine this: You aren't limited to using them in their formation! You can actually do something more interesting with different armies looking different as they aren't limited to just same build.

that's a valid question.

But the problem there is there's now downside, so if you have to give every unit every possible rule that might make it work for a different playstyle, that throws balance totally off.

With formations in order to unlock certain themes you are also restricted in what you can take.

I'll use the GSC analogy.

You could play a horde infantry army with the brood cycle, the rules for that formation facilitate that as do the unit choices.
If you want more of a mechanized army you can use the cavilcade for bonuses to vehicles but have to take transports for your trooops.

If we instead gave all of those units all those rules by default, you'd be giving a huge pile of special rules to those units. Every GSO unit would have furious rage, fnp, vehicles all get outflank, ect ect ect.


So the formations are a more balanced was to allow for themed armies than giving every unit every rule they may or may need to play the various themes.on? Yes that's right they will suck then...Which just shows unit rules are badly designed.

Or you can just make those items conditional upgrades or distinct unit types. Not like both of those things haven't been done before, and without needing to involve an extra layer of army construction, and you can properly and directly cost those abilities then too rather than just giving them away for free.

Danny slag wrote:

The allies are an issue, as is being able to confer special rules to others via independent characters. But in every formation discussion it seems that 99% of what's listed as issues with formations are actually issues with other things in the game and instead of addressing those or fixing formations, which is a cool feature, the answer is to blame formations and throw out the whole concept instead of fixing it.

If I may ask, what, in my post there, was actually an issue with other things in the game instead of being an issue with formations? Extra unit allowance not available to other armies? Abilities that are not paid for?

 Vaktathi wrote:

Danny slag wrote:

The allies are an issue, as is being able to confer special rules to others via independent characters. But in every formation discussion it seems that 99% of what's listed as issues with formations are actually issues with other things in the game and instead of addressing those or fixing formations, which is a cool feature, the answer is to blame formations and throw out the whole concept instead of fixing it.

If I may ask, what, in my post there, was actually an issue with other things in the game instead of being an issue with formations? Extra unit allowance not available to other armies? Abilities that are not paid for?

when you referenced unintended synergies as the issue with formations. That in my opinion doesn't come from formations, that comes from the awful allies matrix making cheesy combinations possible. Those unintended synergies are almost never intra-army, they're caused when you ally.