On CAP, I suggest we adopt the Vanaheim approach of allowing the Elysians to place some of their fighters on CAP instead of garrisons on OW.
Mosc is correct that the Iron Discipline rule needs to stay - indeed the Elysians probably need the ability to rally more than any other list (including the Eldar). In its current form it does not seem overly powerfull and does provide character, so I do not see this as a problem.
To the transport issue - I would love to have separate formations (like LRs). However I strongly suspect that it will not happen unless agreed as a general rule - and there has always been a significant resistance to this. So we will have to put up with attached transport if we are to use Valks, Vendettas etc. (unless someone can suggest an appropriate WE that also fits the fluff)
Moscovian wrote:
We could do a lot of things, but so far I don't think anyone has thought past the "what if we-" part.
I'm just not seeing a serious contender to replace the teleport function, nor a good argument to remove it.
I agree with you that the 'invisible a/c' argument is not a problem as there are many other precedents in E:A, and I definitely agree that Teleport should remain; to me at least it has always provided a good analogy for Elysians parachuting in with the subsequent confusions involved being represented by BMs.
However I do have a problem with Teleport being the *only* off-table option available to the Elysians, hence the suggestion of a limited planetfall capability. From the rules mechanics perspective, as air-transport has been ruled out, there seems to be no problem with giving skimmers the 'planetfall' capability (they will still need a spaceship etc); my only real concern is whether this might be too powerfull - though it is offset to some extent by the planetfall process. If the principle is accepted by the Army Champ, we will just have to try it out. Planetfall would certainly provide a differentiator between the Vendettas and Valkyries.
As to how the Elysians are played, the strategy rating together with limited armour means that formations almost invariably end up with BMs in one way or another irrespective of how they arrive, so either way Elysians must make extensive use of terrain***. It is this aspect that forces the Elysians to be handled so differently from other armies. Finding and using cover is the priority; assaults (indeed most 'normal' battlefield objectives) become secondary to trying to preserve an effective force in a usefull position. In my (limited) experience, this is what makes the list somewhat repetitive; the only usefull strategy seems to be a high activation, 'semi-popcorn' list which in turn both limits the formations that can be used and consequently how they are used. There are numerous counters to this strategy, which is why the Elysians are so hard to use effectively and need an almost masochistic amount of practice to become even passably proficient.
**Note
Judging by the many Battle rep pictures posted for all armies, people seem to use too little terrain in general. For Tournament games, the guide (per 2' square area) is two pieces each a *minimum* of 6" across (meaning the length is longer) so ~6"x9"
with hills being twice the size or 12"x18" . which represents a battlefield coverage of 25% to 33%.
However, most people seem to use less than two terrain pieces per 2' square area of battlefield that are a maximum of 6" square, and consequently struggle to achieve 10% coverage. While most lists can survive on 'Billiard table' battlefields, the Elysians cannot!
Maybe the transport planes get fighter escorts within the formation or the like. <shrug> It would be a cool scene to see Lightning interceptors dog fighting/clearing a way to protect the transports. Plus it would give the army even more character. Still a rule bender though 
