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.

 Crimson wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Look at your army.
Look at those models you like.
Now think how you would feel if they never made any of them again and the existing ones were slowly phased out of the game while GW expects you to buy everything again but a little different and with less (no) options.

If that doesn't make you understand people's problem with Primaris Marines then I don't know how to help you.

By that logic we should all still be playing with the Rogue Trader beakies and GW should have never updated them. Same with the Necrons, same with the Dark Eldar.

Almost all of those models are still useable. Fielding an army of entirely 1st edition models is completely legal, squad numbers and all. I see old Dark Eldar models at our club with some regularity.

The fear comes from the idea that the army that took many hundreds of dollars, hundreds of hours, that has a thousand hours of table time will be forcefully retired.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And

Primaris Marines come off as fanboy marines.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Maybe I’m being simplistic about this. I thought the whole idea with the GW design process to be done by CAD was that it was easier to design and adjust the models.

Couldn’t they just have theoretically just bumped the size of the sprues by like 10%+ and made all old marine models primaris sized and just had primaris be normal marines, with better armour and weapons but more limited options, and rule wise bumped all marines to +1 arrack and wound? So suddenly primaris are not ‘that’ special, or a thing other than them being vat grown or cloned?

Yeah, but then they wouldn't have been able to do the proportions change, which is a key aspect of the Primaris design (and fan-made truescale conversions).

 Talizvar wrote:

So then we have Primaris.
They are the tallest normal trooper out there, I suppose they should be.

Tyranid Warriors hold that honor. Which is why I built my all Tyranid Warrior collection as a middle-finger to Primaris. I don't want marines to be the biggest-bestest normal guys around.

Even then they're not the best the imperium has to offer, as we have a full-on Custodes army now.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Even then they're not the best the imperium has to offer, as we have a full-on Custodes army now.

It baffles me to see custodes. The only instance in which I could imagine them it would be as a single part of the retinue of an inquisitor.
But then again, this would not be a good way to sell models in Spamhammer 40k.

I know. It kills me a little on the inside each time I see them played, and I see them often. What hurts worse is the ever popular 3 shield captains. How rare are those supposed to be? Don't they have some section of the imperial palace to stand in, somewhere? I suppose they're supposed to be mobilized anew for the current age, but still.

Thankfully I can take solace in eating them with Nids, most of the time. See that hero of the emperor? That champion of champions wielding the finest of the finest armour and wargear? He's going to die spending his last moments killing a few drones that are borne in the billions. Nomnomnomnom.

^really? Are they a flat heirarchy organization or something?

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, just like the Inquisition, the only difference between an Inquisitor and a Lord Inquisitor is that the second has more respect from others and more power.

Huh. Imo that makes the Custodes appearance on the tabletop even weirder.

 Smirrors wrote:
Personally I think they should make the old marines have the same stats as primaris and then make the new primaris pay small amount of points for weapon upgrades over basic bolter. That way the units arent competing against each other and people can mix old and new models.

And what do you propose for Aspect Warriors in that scenario?

 Perth wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
Personally I think they should make the old marines have the same stats as primaris and then make the new primaris pay small amount of points for weapon upgrades over basic bolter. That way the units arent competing against each other and people can mix old and new models.

And what do you propose for Aspect Warriors in that scenario?

I support this idea, but what do Aspect Warriors have to do with this situation? If they get new models, they get new models, just like Jetbikes did. Use the old or the new.

The problem with Primaris is they made new models to replace a line, not update it.

My issue is with marines suddenly getting boosted stats and has nothing to do with models. Why would space Marines get a free upgrade to 2A 2W, while other elite units stay at 1W 1A? I don't like the "basic Space Marine supremacy" of it.

^If Space Marines get upgraded to 2w 2A, I want Eldar Aspect Warriors to be 2w 2A, Necron Immortals to be 2w T5, and Genestealers to be 2w 5A.

Genestealers are 12 currently. Marines are 13. Dire Avengers are what, 8-10? Genestealers are priced like elite infantry. Compare them to a Striking Scorpion or Banshee and they're not that far off. Genestealers are fast, lightly armored elite CC infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

novembermike wrote:
Sure, if you want to be paying 20 points per genestealer or 40 points for an aspect warrior. Those units tend to have a focused purpose and delivery mechanism so if you make the models better you'd have to raise the price more. It also doesn't really fit the fantasy of the units.

What delivery system do Aspect Warriors have that Marines don't? Both have transports. As for focused purpose, that's usually an excuse, imo. Tactical Marines engage in short range firefights with some assault duty, just like Dire Avengers. Assault marines engage in CC,(don't they have a delivery system?), Devastators are fire support. It's pretty straight forward.

When you say were gonna charge 40 points for an Aspect Warrior, which Aspect are you talking about. Striking Scorpions? Avengers? If so, are you going to pump the price point of marines up to 35? I assume that's not what you're proposing so let's see what you mean by that.

Ice_can wrote:

Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?

If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.

Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?

Karol wrote:
Well there is also that thing that eldar can shot the opposing army to hell an back, so their wave serpents can actualy deploy their melee units to do something. Marines have to go all out tournament list to get even close, but then we are talking about a casual eldar list going toe to toe with a marine list. And if an eldar players takes a tournament list, he just rolls over a mono marine player.

Mono Eldar, no Ynnari, is not what shows up in tournaments. An Eldar Tournament list is typically Ynnari soup. In which case you're drawing an equivalency between mono-marine and soup Eldar.

If you're saying a good mono Craftworld list auto-stomps a good mono marine list, I doubt that assertion.

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?

If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.

Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?

No your taking what I'm saying and adjusting it to suit your own narative.

Well, do you acknowledge that there might be an issue with just pumping the core units of one codex, but ignoring them in another codex, despite the idea that both units should have some sort of parity?

Ice_can wrote:

How good/ what point would a unit of banshees need to be to justify taking them and a waveserpent over just using shining spears? How few points do striking scorpions nned to be to compete for points in a list against dark reapers?

Both codex's have fundamentally different issues.
Eldar codex has some realy good for their points unit that can have special rules stacked on them. Other units gain way less from having those rules stacked on, them so players don't stack those rules on them and those units look even worse for the points in comparison.

Making a banshee cheap enough to compete for points with Yannari spear or other stuff leads to the issue of just going all in on them suddenly becomes a problem.
Spears need to be more points and banshees etc possibly need to be cheaper how much I'm not sure but you dont just make tgem straight up as efficent as yannari spears. Thats just asking for another drukari codex level of busted stuff.
If anything it's probably more an issue of the extreme level of buffing and debuff stacking that needs towned down.

Every marine is a tac + some change if you over pay for the fundamental statline everything in your army pays that cost plus a mark up. Totally different issue, it's more a fundamental miss calculating of value.

Ok, this seems to me what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong:
Eldar have a diverse array of units, some of which work well in the meta and some of which don't. The ones that work well do so because of special abilities, and the ability to further multiply those abilities via spells, Ynnari, etc. Ok

"Making a banshee cheap enough . . ." (hard to figure out this section actually, maybe re-iterate that for me) ???

Then you seem to be saying something like: All Space Marine units are based off of Tac Marines, and if the evaluation of that stat-line is wrong, the whole army is off. a reasonable assertion.



Since I don't really know how to respond to the middle section, my initial response is something like. . .
A: I think people underestimate the value of a Tac Marine, in general, for a number of reasons. But rather than argue for it's current value of 13, I'd say that your post acknowledges that there's room for re-valuing the stat-line with points, rather than changing the stat-line itself.

B: All Eldar Aspect Warriors are similarly based off the same "Aspect Warrior stat-line", internally, so in that regard the units we're talking about here are in the same situation as Marines.

C: The issue you seem to be pointing too, in terms of balance, is just that some Eldar units benefit A LOT from certain synergies. This seems more likely to happen in a codex where the units themselves are more extreme, depending on the synergy opportunities offered. If you asked me if I thought that was inherently a problem, I'd say no, not really. The resulting balance between the Marine and Eldar codex can still be adjusted by modifying the potential buffs, special rules and points, and doesn't have to be modifying the statlines away from where they've been roughly for decades.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Genestealers are 12 currently. Marines are 13. Dire Avengers are what, 8-10? Genestealers are priced like elite infantry. Compare them to a Striking Scorpion or Banshee and they're not that far off. Genestealers are fast, lightly armored elite CC infantry.

DAs are 12 pt I believe. Guardians are 8 pts. In any case, the whole point of 2W is to give "heavy" infantry more staying power. Genestealers may be elite, but they are intended to be fragile and so are not heavy infantry. Unless you're proposing that 2W marines would necessitate 2W scions because they're "elite"? Which doesn't make sense tbh. Scions are elite light to medium infantry and cost 10 pts. Marines on the other hand are definitely heavy infantry, which is where the 2W idea comes from.

I think the term "heavy infantry" is ill-defined. How "heavy" is "heavy infantry"? See, since the mid 90's Striking Scorpions and Space Marines have had the same number of wounds, and the same armor. Are Necron Immortals "heavy infantry?" I'd argue that Necron Warriors are "heavy Infantry", too. Warp Spiders and Dark Reapers would seem to be "heavy Infantry".

As for "elite", I just mean units that are intended to be on a rough parity with Space Marines, which Scions are not, afaik. Genestealers are just the Tyranid version, trading armor (but not toughness) for speed. You can give them a 4+ save though, which isn't exactly fragile. A T4 4+ is nearly a Space Marine. A T4 4+ is a Necron Warrior, actually.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?

If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.

Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?

No your taking what I'm saying and adjusting it to suit your own narative.

Well, do you acknowledge that there might be an issue with just pumping the core units of one codex, but ignoring them in another codex, despite the idea that both units should have some sort of parity?

Ice_can wrote:

How good/ what point would a unit of banshees need to be to justify taking them and a waveserpent over just using shining spears? How few points do striking scorpions nned to be to compete for points in a list against dark reapers?

Both codex's have fundamentally different issues.
Eldar codex has some realy good for their points unit that can have special rules stacked on them. Other units gain way less from having those rules stacked on, them so players don't stack those rules on them and those units look even worse for the points in comparison.

Making a banshee cheap enough to compete for points with Yannari spear or other stuff leads to the issue of just going all in on them suddenly becomes a problem.
Spears need to be more points and banshees etc possibly need to be cheaper how much I'm not sure but you dont just make tgem straight up as efficent as yannari spears. Thats just asking for another drukari codex level of busted stuff.
If anything it's probably more an issue of the extreme level of buffing and debuff stacking that needs towned down.

Every marine is a tac + some change if you over pay for the fundamental statline everything in your army pays that cost plus a mark up. Totally different issue, it's more a fundamental miss calculating of value.

Ok, this seems to me what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong:
Eldar have a diverse array of units, some of which work well in the meta and some of which don't. The ones that work well do so because of special abilities, and the ability to further multiply those abilities via spells, Ynnari, etc. Ok

"Making a banshee cheap enough . . ." (hard to figure out this section actually, maybe re-iterate that for me) ???

Then you seem to be saying something like: All Space Marine units are based off of Tac Marines, and if the evaluation of that stat-line is wrong, the whole army is off. a reasonable assertion.



Since I don't really know how to respond to the middle section, my initial response is something like. . .
A: I think people underestimate the value of a Tac Marine, in general, for a number of reasons. But rather than argue for it's current value of 13, I'd say that your post acknowledges that there's room for re-valuing the stat-line with points, rather than changing the stat-line itself.

B: All Eldar Aspect Warriors are similarly based off the same "Aspect Warrior stat-line", internally, so in that regard the units we're talking about here are in the same situation as Marines.

C: The issue you seem to be pointing too, in terms of balance, is just that some Eldar units benefit A LOT from certain synergies. This seems more likely to happen in a codex where the units themselves are more extreme, depending on the synergy opportunities offered. If you asked me if I thought that was inherently a problem, I'd say no, not really. The resulting balance between the Marine and Eldar codex can still be adjusted by modifying the potential buffs, special rules and points, and doesn't have to be modifying the statlines away from where they've been roughly for decades.

A Yes it doesn't need changed it just needs to be worth it's point's.

B I think the fundamental reason aspect worries are bad and marines are bad is different.
I believe Marines are flat miscosted.
Craftworld eldar have the cost of buffs being spreed across the codex inatead of being concentrated on the units providing the buffs.

C The issue I'm trying to point to is that I don't think that the eldar base unit is actually bad, it that it appears to be a victim of GW "fluffy" logic at it's best. They haven't made the psychers expensive enough to justify their buff powers so to even it out they have added a premium to all of the craftworld codex.
However that was inherently flawed logic as it makes everything more expensive when not everything can benifit. It also means those casters are inherently undercosted hence why they keep showing up in Harlequins and Drukari lists.
Aspect warriors can probably loose a point or two but a farseer with doom is a 200 point buff machine that currently costs less than half that.

Balance the unit for what they can do not the things that might effect them.

A: Cool. I'm mainly on here to combat the push for 2W marines. Marines dropping to 12 seems within reason.

B: Interesting. Fair enough.

C: The "premium" you talk of for Eldar is a new one for me. I'm not sure of that, but it's food for thought. As for a Farseer being a 200 point buff machine, do you mean a Farseer with Doom should be 200 points? I can't agree with that, not when Marine Lt's are 60 points for a passive buff. But sure, Farseers are a great HQ, no doubt about that.

Ice_can wrote:

Doom and Guide is basically Guilliman level buffs on rerollable psychic test with a stack load of bonuses.
It's why craftworld as a codex is on the good not totally broken level of power but Yannari and Aeldari soup is downright broken.
Imagine being able to gice reroll wounds against any enemy unit in 24" for your entire army plus a chapter master buff to a unit of your choice for 110 points its mental.

Sorta. I pay about 150 points (and 3CP) so that everyone rerolls all to-hits and re-rolls 1s to wound, and I don't have to cast psychic powers to do it. They seem roughly balanced to me.

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

I think the term "heavy infantry" is ill-defined. How "heavy" is "heavy infantry"? See, since the mid 90's Striking Scorpions and Space Marines have had the same number of wounds, and the same armor. Are Necron Immortals "heavy infantry?" I'd argue that Necron Warriors are "heavy Infantry", too. Warp Spiders and Dark Reapers would seem to be "heavy Infantry".

As for "elite", I just mean units that are intended to be on a rough parity with Space Marines, which Scions are not, afaik. Genestealers are just the Tyranid version, trading armor (but not toughness) for speed. You can give them a 4+ save though, which isn't exactly fragile. A T4 4+ is nearly a Space Marine. A T4 4+ is a Necron Warrior, actually.

The appeal to legacy doesn't really work. Guardsmen have the same number of wounds as marines and always have, but that doesn't mean we should keep them the same just because it's always been that way.

Legacy remains important. It tells us how the designers have felt about the balance between units over time, which for some of the core units, has remained pretty consistent. It doesn't mean trends can't be broken, but it certainly can't be ignored either. It shows us the intent behind the balance.

Dandelion wrote:

Secondly, I do feel that most heavy/elite infantry could do well to get 2W: Marines, Necrons, Orks, Sisters and also Aspects. I just don't really see Genestealers as part of that group. Tyranid Warriors have always been the elite nid troops. Genestealers are more of a specialist imo and they wouldn't need 2W to compete with marines anyway since they hit really hard (or at least should). Basically while marines are super durable, stealers are super killy which balances them out against each other. So they don't need to mirror their stats.

Ok, if you feel like a bunch of those units should be looked at and considered for an upgrade, then I'm on board to explore that possibility. About Tyranids though, they've always occupied a slightly different space. Gaunts are clearly horde, Genestealers have been similar to Banshees for most of the time, Tyranid Warriors are The Big Standard Nid, and have occupied the Elites slot for much of their time. Imo Genestealers could go either way, depending on what other strengths and weaknesses they have.

Dandelion wrote:

Though, while I'm at it, I'm not sure I know what your referencing when saying certain things should be on par with marines. Is it the fluff or just prior/current rules? Cuz if it's rules-wise then Scions easily have parity with aspect warriors (similar durability and lethality). Which would make them en par with marines, and therefore deserving of 2W, or whatever marines are (by what I understand of your logic).

Some combination of fluff and design trends. Scions are still fundamentaly a human profile. So are Sisters, for that matter. Things get tricky. Should an Aspect Warrior be twice as durable as a sister to small arms? I don't really think so. Should an Ork have 2 wounds? If Eldar did, then I'd say yes. How tough is a Space Marine, really? Right now they are as tough as an Ork, have armor comparable to the best Aspect Armor, and are stronger than both.

It doesn't sound like much in the context of the large battles with a bunch of tanks and airplanes that a current 40K game is, but I think it's proper for the relationships between basic core troops of 40K to not shift around too much.

 Wyzilla wrote:

Eldar aren't an elite army.

Wat? Do you 40K? What do you think Aspect Warriors are/supposed to be?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Legacy remains important. It tells us how the designers have felt about the balance between units over time, which for some of the core units, has remained pretty consistent. It doesn't mean trends can't be broken, but it certainly can't be ignored either. It shows us the intent behind the balance.

Eh, I wouldn't put that much weight on tradition or previous design decisions. Take Stealthsuits for example. They used to be 1W, T3 models, and now they're 2W, T4 models and it made them FAR better and more fun to use. Even their burst cannon got an extra shot in the process. In this case, ditching the old design improved their playability and "feel". Obviously you shouldn't change things willy nilly, but taking a step back and at least reconsidering some of these relationships would be a good thing.

The biggest thing for me, though, is the fundamental changes made to the game. A 2W model now isn't worth as much as a 2W model in the past due to the damage system. So while 2W marines/necrons might have been a bad idea before, the current rules seem to support having a larger proportion of 2W models without it being obnoxious. So I say we go for it.

Well, like I said, some units have been pretty stable for a loooong time, and some factions are more stable than others. Aspect Warriors and Space Marines have had their respective relationship for 20+ years, and imo that relationship is an important one.

Weapons dealing multiple damage, just so you know, isn't new. It's a return to ancient days.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Eldar aren't an elite army.

Wat? Do you 40K? What do you think Aspect Warriors are/supposed to be?

Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters. Eldar primarily focus on mobility over durability, and Aspect Warriors are a small slice of an Eldar army that should be mostly fielding Guardians.

The numbers of them in the universe matter little to their individual worth on the tabletop. If that were the case Tyranid Warriors should have crappy stats because there's billions of them.

 Wyzilla wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Eldar aren't an elite army.

Wat? Do you 40K? What do you think Aspect Warriors are/supposed to be?

Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters. Eldar primarily focus on mobility over durability, and Aspect Warriors are a small slice of an Eldar army that should be mostly fielding Guardians.

The numbers of them in the universe matter little to their individual worth on the tabletop. If that were the case Tyranid Warriors should have crappy stats because there's billions of them.

And Aspect Warriors aren't an elite army. They are elites within a horde army, and they are not even supposed to be durable elites. Aspect Warriors have no posthuman physiology and are no different from normal Eldar or little more tough than humans. Making them 2 wounds is ridiculous and missing the point of game design itself, if you bump up everything in wounds all you've done is replicated the meta and kicked it up in scale with no change. With everything still playing similarly. Eldar aren't scant-strong tanky units of special forces, but a fast moving and highly skilled force. If they need a buff then they ought to be slapped with increased movement or weapon skill long before anybody thinks of a durability increase for what's supposed to be fast moving glass cannons. Tyranid Warriors have their stats because they're spines of the Tyranid army - synaptic cores supporting tendrils of gaunt blobs which nexus out from the Hive Tyrant at the center.

Why do you think Eldar are a horde army?

Why would Beil-Tan with a heavy focus on Aspect Warriors not be an elite army?

". . .and they are not even supposed to be durable elites." Based on what? I'm basing my interpretation on the fact that many Aspects have had the same number of wounds as a Space Marine, and the same armor as a Space Marine, for over 20 years.

Imo a Craftworld army is basically the combined Guard and Space Marine army. Guardians are guardsmen (except better), and Aspect Warriors are their Space Marine equivalent of Eldar flavor.

novembermike wrote:
The comment is about the Monkey's Paw nature of asking for equal boosts. So far Primaris haven't gotten units that effectively use the wound and attack boost. If you start boosting these stats for units that actually use them then you pay more. Look at terminators if you want an example. This usually isn't correct, but it's how GW has done things.

Sure, units tend to pay for the overall combination of stats+equipment.

novembermike wrote:
As for delivery systems, Aspect Warriors tend to have higher movement, special rules for advance + shoot or advance + assault and their transports are better. That makes it easier to deliver them to use their attacks.

Assault Marines/Vanguard Vets have a higher movement rate than most Aspects. Eldar Transports may be better, but they're more expensive, meaning you can take fewer.

Dandelion wrote:
I just know that 2W marines plays more elite-like than 1W marines when compared to Guard or Tau. And I think that's what most people really want, and they're just not thinking about eldar.

Right. They're not thinking about it. They just want their Space Marines to be head and shoulders above everyone else. Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

novembermike wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

tbh I just don't see why that particular relation is so important. Termies are now 2W, and that didn't upset anyone. Stealthsuits are at 2W despite 15 years of not being that. Scouts had their BS buffed, despite being intentionally worse. The whole aspect=marines relationship you're talking about really only seems to matter to you. (granted someone else probably does but I haven't met that person yet). But, it's not a big deal. I just know that 2W marines plays more elite-like than 1W marines when compared to Guard or Tau. And I think that's what most people really want, and they're just not thinking about eldar.
Quite frankly though, and regardless of marines, Aspects need 2A to get that elite feeling from them. then give Striking Scorpion/Banshees 3A and so on. 1A is fine for cheap infantry but not elites.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. Aspects should get stats that make sense for them. Fire Dragons should be 1A, Dire Avengers 2A and Striking Scorpions/Banshees 3A. The number of wounds is fine, wounds either represent physical toughness or "character" toughness. Eldar Aspect Warriors aren't physically tougher and only exarchs get character toughness.

Maybe give Shuriken Catapults 2 D?

Bharring wrote:
This game would be so much better if all the buffs got nerfed hard.

Auras push most armies - SM even more than most - into a deathstar playstyle. Only, instead of the one-unit deathstars in 7th GW killed off, we get 6-unit deathstars in one large blob on the table.

I generally agree. Spells have been in the game since forever, so I'm fine with that in principle. I'm not fond of the aura buff mechanic in particular. It makes armies act weird.