This list has been selected for inclusion in the Big List of Eldar Lists project, even though it isn't yours, for the reasons outlined by Moc above. It will be receiving a score from me using the 5/5 system as outlined in the Big List of Eldar Lists in the stickies on this board. The critique will be given as though it had been posted by its owner. Following is the critique I have given:
Background: 0
There's no real background info offered for the reader to understand the army, so it largely becomes a matter of guessing. Also, the missing points costs makes it difficult to gauge how the force is allocated as well as masking any potential room for adding units. The list on the whole is difficult to gauge for effectiveness as a result, but it is also hard to offer useful advice and suggestions as nothing is known about this "mystery army." This is why it is important to make this info known.
Composition: 0
Very light on troops choices, mostly because the list is so heavy on the top and bottom. Two powerful support units as HQs that don't have a whole lot to support, and are likely unnecessary. Little available in the way of effective AT weaponry, and also very little to handle some of the more hardcore 1k horde lists. This list is left beating up MEQs and playing VP denial due to its lack of capability in other arenas. With a huge amount of points invested in 7 models that will probably be in the open [or 13 wounds, if you prefer], I think this serves as a good example of poor comp, especially with no theme or explanation as to why these choices were made. It's like a symphony played by an orchestra comprised of random instruments, all of them loud but nothing to hold a rhythm.
Utility: .5
The elements of this army that aren't set in stone tend towards minimal upgrades, though I'll assume the Falcon probably has a survivability option. The list is really no help; without the points costs it is impossible to know for certain if the upgrades listed account for all of the upgrades [and no defensive options on a grav tank is not the way to increase a utility score!]. Given the uncertainty, I can only award half a point for what feels like an attempt at minimal upgrading but falls short.
Flexibility: 0
Most of these units are limited to performing one specific task. The harlies will assault their target of choice, and if lucky be able to continue assaulting other units. The spears lack much in the way of support. The Avatar is easily avoided in the back lines, the reapers decrease in impact vs non-MEQ targets, and the bikes are limited to harrassment. Some sort of plan could pull these separate entities together, but since that is also not present, it looks like this list is waiting to fall apart at the seams. The units will be forced to perform in their one role and be incapable of altering their function because they lack support.
Ingenuity: 0
This section is so conspicuously absent it needs no explanation, but the problem is aggravated due to the need for a solid plan if this list is to function. This list is a good example of how a lack of description on strategy for an army list can turn a collection of solid units into a weak list, where many of the elements might normally be considered strong.
Total Score: .5
Primarily this score is the result of reviewing a list that was not presented with a request for a critique. This list is also an example of why it is important to explain oneself when generating an army list. It is impossible for others to know what the creator of the army list had in mind when he built it if this information is not included.