With an army list this well-developed it will be easy to offer a critique:
Background: 1.0You've got a good discussion of your Alaitoc theme and wish to adhere to it. This is useful because it prevents a lot of suggestions or criticism that would be unfair or irrelevant to an Alaitoc style force. For instance, you mention the desire to use it in a tournament as a mech/reserves list, and yet forego seer councils. Many might argue that this is a bad move, but including a seer council would move you pretty far from your intended goal of an Alaitoc list.
Additionally, I'm glad to see you take the time to explain your exceptions. Including a counts-as special character and explaining you have a conversion in the works is IMO a lot better than just including Yriel. A bit of discussion about how you intend to get your counts-as model as close to wysiwyg as possible would be fun.
Since you explain that you intend to use this list for tournament play, it will still be necessary for readers to look into your choices for the sake of optimization. You'll be walking a thin line here since there's a lot of tension between the needs of your theme and the needs of tournament play. Nevertheless, I think you've done a pretty good job of handling this tension, though perhaps you've missed some of your scoring potential - we'll get to that later on.
Without a specific enemy in mind, I'm glad you've at least considered what you'll do with a large variety of opponents. A concrete plan is less of a necessity than a general sense of the proper actions to take, and you've accoutned for lots of different variables quite nicely in your writeup.
When it comes to goals, I think keeping a simple framework for the list in mind would be very helpful. You've got a lot of contingency plans but not a nice simple main idea, at least not one that stands out. This could be as easy as "I'll primarily be looking to wipe out the enemy, scoring isn't too important" or "I'll avoid engaging where possible, and use speed to get objectives or concentrate force against weak points." These ideas are spoken to throughout your post, but a sort of Game Plan is a nice thing to begin such discussions with. It also keeps your contingencies playing to your main strengths, and if you're likely to misuse the list, it'll usually be obvious where your list isn't suited to your playstyle
.
Composition: 0.5Your force has some nice variety spread along the entirety of the FOC. While the reduced presence of fast attack units doesn't concern me so much with Eldar, the inclusion of only three troops choices does, to an extent, especially where two of these are duplicates. For instance, were it possible a group of Avengers would be a nice inclusion, as they can utilize your reserve strategy to simply walk onto the table and grab an objective near your deployment zone, or add some late-game firepower to the list, and are a bit more resistant to flamers and barrage weapons than rangers are.
When it comes to unit variation you've done a pretty good job. A reserves list that's not completely transport-saturated has some nice flexibility and a friendlier total model-count. I think one of the strengths of the list is its relative diversity of units. You miss my marks on the KP front [by 1 KP], and the same for scoring units [by one unit], but to accomplish the other things you've accomplished in this list you'd probably have to take this hit.
Utility: 0.75Units of 6 are better than units of 5 for the purposes of regrouping; you've lost a little morale resilience in order to add variety. Tradeoffs like this are okay and inevitable. While not a morale issue, three walkers in a single unit will make a very tempting target. You've managed to avoid unnecessary upgrades - probably one of the more minimalist army lists I've seen in a long time! - but look closely at those wave serpents as you use this army; you might find those spirit stones making more sense than the chin guns, eventually. The writeup for each of your units is done well and you have no unrealistic expectations of any of your units; it appears they can get their jobs done as quickly as needed.
Flexibility: 1.0I like that you've managed to have all your key functions made redundant to an extent, and at the same time, are aware of alternate uses for most of your units. This flexibility and an understanding of it are critical to using Eldar properly - with what appears to be narrowly-defined unit functions across the codex as a whole, it's often necessary to balance duplicating core functions with maintaining a wide variety of tactical options. I think you've really done well in this area. You've got a solid mix of close combat and shooting, should be able to control the board through deployment options and maneuverability, and still manage to have a pretty decent model count. Your writeup illustrates a good understanding of what your units are capable of, how they'll interact and what surprises you may be able to pull off. Also, you keep these alternate functions reasonable; you're not expecting rangers to pull off an assault against an enemy, for instance
. Nicely done.
Ingenuity: 1.0 You didn't mention the possibility of moving the rangers into the serpents for the sake of scoring; in some missions it may make more sense to saddle up rather quickly and let the banshees hold down the fort in your deployment zone, so to speak. Mentioning this sort of thing can prevent people from underestimating your scoring potential. Aside from that one missing component, however, I think you've covered all my requirements here - you've got a battle plan (orplans) that seems like it should work, you cover contingencies, you acknowledge some of your weaknesses, detail how your units will work together, and most importantly, have offered me something new to read, rather than something similar to what frequently appears on this board. All in all it's a very nice, fresh take on an approach to Eldar that lost a good deal of popularity with 5th ed's arrival; I'm glad to see you treat it with such finesse
.
Total score: 4.25 I think what you have done with this army list and its writeup is quite excellent. The army should perform rather well, the writeup allows others to see how it will work. Thanks for a rather excellent read
.