Okay, I think it'll help to have my critique posted in this thread - you've been project-ed, you know, so while it's relevant I'll take a wander through it using the system I always use:
1-Background Some info about the army, enemy, theatre and strategy
2-Composition Weighted distribution amongst FOC slots
3-Utility Units are suited to their task/not overupgraded
4-Flexibility Army shows variety and units are versatile
5-Ingenuity Strategies, Combos and backup plans have been considered
Each of the above five areas can earn up to 1 point each, for a maximum score of five. A score of 3 indicates a solid list, with scores of 4 or higher being very good/excellent.
Each section receives one of the following scores:
0.0: Little thought given to addressing this area
0.5: Moderate thought given to addressing this area
1.0: Thorough thought given to addressing this area
So, without further ado:
Background: 1
Each set of units has a good deal of description accompanying it detailing its usage, the army as a whole is presented in light of the arenas it is typically fielded in, an account for terrain strategies is given as well as consideration of the different missions it is fielded within. It is listed as a take-all-comers style - and since it is a retired list, it will not have to worry about any opponents anymore.
Composition: 1
The army is a little top/bottom heavy, to be fair. However, there are units represented from all areas of the force organization chart, and the units selected cover a broad range of potential enemy threats and playstyles. The units each fit different roles strongly while supporting the key design consideration of victory point denial. With most of the bases here covered, the weight given to the top and bottom of the army is not so bad. Additionally, the army list is at the intersection of two typical Eldar designs; the synthesis here is effective, well-executed, and relies on some units not typically committed to those forms.
Utility: .5
HQ:
Eldrad and the Avatar are used in their typical role as supporting elements of the army, and since both cannot be adjusted in any way, they are as much bang for the buck as they possibly can be.
Elites:
Here is a spin not commonly seen; two sets of dragons on a falcon with a harlie squad on foot [with a deathjester!] As the harlies are stated to provide counter-assault, the deathjester and non-kiss harlies are good investments. Since the point of this unit is to remain at full value throughout the game, having a lot of points tied to it makes sense; of course, it also gives the opponent even more incentive to destroy the squad outright. The fire dragons are in their mixed format, meaning they are not optimized, but remain effective.
Troops:
Two inexpensive jetbike teams accompanied by a small pathfinder team and a solid squad of guardians defenders. The bikes and the pathfinders are both tailored to be about as effective in their goals as they possibly can, kept cheap and to the point. The defenders add some nice AT to the list, though this is probably not a necessity. The spear in a defenders squad can also be an unnecessary expenditure, and conceal may not be an optimal power for a unit that spends much of its time in cover anyways.
Fast Attack:
A single vyper, built as a light-vehicle hunter and possible scoring unit. While the config is all right, it is not optimized for its occasional objective-grabbing role and has more points spent than necessary on a throw-away unit.
Heavy Support:
A full compliment of grav-tanks with virtually all the trimmings [though I do notice the lack of star engines on the prism, which doesn't need them!]. Lots of solid fire support and the expenditure on the vehicle upgrades makes good sense in light of the list's main strategy of victory points denial. The falcons could probably fare just as well with a second shuriken cannon over the scatter laser, as chances are they'll be in range of most enemy anyways.
Flexibility: 1
Almost every unit in this army can deal with any threat presented by an enemy, and they can do so in a wide variety of ways due to a good selection of different unit types being present. This means that no one part of the army is an absolute necessity and, furthermore, the vulnerabilities of some of the elements are not repeated too much throughout the list [meaning no one unit will be capable of owning all of your force]. Good options available in every game phase, allowing for a very proactive playstyle even when fielded defensively. A good job covering all of your bases.
Ingenuity: 1
You have a good idea as to how you want this army to play and have designed it to be very capable in that format [denying victory points while still making strong grabs for objectives]. More importantly, you have included some thought in your design about what you can do in situations that are not favorable to your playstyle, or how to change your actions up when you are incapable of performing a unit's main function. Also, you have included reasons for leaving out some of the other options you could have tried instead. I would still like to hear more about some of the tactics employed as backup plans, but this is one of the better accounts I've seen included in an army list. Nice job.
Summary: 4.5 [excellent]
The army list is well-written, the implementation of its elements are not left up to the reader to figure out, an account is given of how the army came into being, where and how it is fielded, units have been selected carefully and though units are not all optimized to their roles utility is traded for flexibility, and some contingency planning has been done. Finally, other players could probably use the army list presented here themselves, following guidelines given, and have a similar level of performance. A very thoughtful and well-presented army list.
