Here's a quick list I'd use if I was going to field an army with standard 1:2 structure of hosts and troupes, based on what models I actually got:

Avatar
Warlock Titan (wraithseer, wraithgate) 1025
Revenant Pair 650
War Walkers 200
Wind Riders 200
Swords of Vaul (4 Falcon, 2 Firestorms) 300
Guardian Troupe (3 wraithguard, 7 guardians/platforms) 300
Nightwings 300

The Warlock is the centrepiece here, so much so that the army will probably autolose if it goes down early (turn 1 or 2). Not saying this is a very effective army, but it would be my starting point if I was going to play a titan list based along more traditional list building structures.

Something I have found with the amtl and gargant lists is that expensive upgrade options are rarely selected.
Thus the wraithgate may find itself too expensive to be worthwhile. How about if it were an "arm weapon" option.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

See, that list doesn't really say 'Titan Clan' to me - it just looks like a normal Eldar list that's ignored the restriction on Titans and Aircraft.
In fact, if you replaced the Revenants with Scorpions (which are similar, in a lot of ways), it's literally a normal Eldar list.
+++Edit+++ Actually, it's not (too few core hosts); but you see my point.+++


I'll pass it on to Bob Hunk - he's the ETC player (I just use Biel Tan). I know that he takes three battle Titans because he loves the models and the idea of a Titan army.


Well, it was really just off the top of my head - essentially, for every Phantom in the army, the ETC player can opt to 'waive' one activation - in effect, forcing the other player to retain (though without the penalty). Think of it as the inverse of Farsight; the mechanic simply removing an activation rather than giving a bonus one.

Note that I haven't heard from Angel_of_Caliban yet, so we'll crack on without the Ghosting idea and with Farsight for this playtest.

However, the specifics of the rule are largely irrelevant - my point is that I think the ETC need a 'unique selling point', or you might as well not bother trying to create a Titan Clan list that represents the background and just go with a very lightly modified Biel Tan list.

My Ghosting suggestion for aimed to address the following issues that have arisen in playtesting:
1) Warlocks are a no-brainer.
2) Farsight is too reliable in a 1+ initiative force.
3) Phantoms are a poor second choice to Warlocks.
4) The list doesn't encourage use of the Titans.
5) Triple retaining leads to 'lopsided turns' (see my previous post for an explanation).

It's far from the only solution!

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

Only Phantoms can have Wraithgate.

people are probably not taking the wraithgate for several reasons;

1) what E&C said - titan armies suffer from a lack of activations, so spending points on upgrades = even fewer activations
2) wraithgate assaults work with particular play styles, typically infantry heavy lists that can afford to keep one or more fms off table until the right moment. Doing that with an ETC list would cripple your strategy.
3) the ETC list isn't short of scary assault options - a wraithlord fm coming out of the wraithgate might be scary, but it's nothing compared to a Warlock!
4) mixing strategies doesn't work with Eldar - I've tried and it sucks. it's better to just stick with one strategy (wraithgate assault or titan assault or ...) and stick with that, so the wraithgate on a titan is an inherent 1/2 way house between strategies.

It's an interesting thought experiment, but I imagine that if I made up an ETC list to play with (which I hope to do sometime next month), I doubt it would make the cut

i suggested a similar (but more generally available) rule to 'ghosting' a while back in a "stop the game being all about having more activations" thread
my suggestion was something akin to "each formation is entitled to make a "Pass" action. this action requires an initiative test (i'd say thematically it would suffer the -1 for enemies in 30cm, like a rally does) and if passed, the formation doesnt activate, and activations move onto your opponent again (note that you cannot keep passing with the same unit, once per turn please)
it starts to get a little more complex when you introduce restrictions on when you can pass (for instance "when you have less activations than your opponent" in an effort to stop people with big armies simply passing whenever their opponent does.
there was also the added potential to say something like "once passed, the passing unit must attempt to activate in the next activation group" but i dont think it needs to be telegraphed quite that much. i think its a simple rule that might have a drastic change on the current "take no upgrades because you need activations" metagame prevalency, and the threat of failing the activation and being forced to hold, is enough of a dis-incentive to using it willy-nilly

as to ETC stuff. a titan based warp portal is quite a potent threat, but very much needs the army to be built around it (for instance. revenants double, place BMs on target, phantom assaults target, breaks target, formation jumps through portal to engage broken formation, wipes out formation)
that reason alone is i think, enough to rule out incuding jetbike formations in the etc list (beyond the aesthetics of a walker based army, and the fact that it doesnt need jetbikes!)

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Just to say I don't consider the double retain as big a problem as others do. In general I only retain if I can take an activation away from my opponent (break or destroy it). So to me, having few activations in the first place does of course create an activation deficit, but retaining does not widen the deficit. In any case, if people don't think it's worth double retaining then they won't. As discussed on the other thread I actually rarely do it in Biel Tan lists either, even though I love doing it. It's just not often that the opportunity, need and worth is there.

I also think no -1 for retain is fine too, with so few activations and on such an important unit, ETC need all the help they can get to prevent warlocks failing activations. Basically I don't think there's a big issue with Farsight.

Ghosting I do like the idea of (especially as an anti-Farsight) as I too wish the emphasis on activation count wasn't so strong in the game. But sadly IMO it's just too major a change to entertain.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

people are probably not taking the wraithgate for several reasons;

1) what E&C said - titan armies suffer from a lack of activations, so spending points on upgrades = even fewer activations
2) wraithgate assaults work with particular play styles, typically infantry heavy lists that can afford to keep one or more fms off table until the right moment. Doing that with an ETC list would cripple your strategy.
3) the ETC list isn't short of scary assault options - a wraithlord fm coming out of the wraithgate might be scary, but it's nothing compared to a Warlock!
4) mixing strategies doesn't work with Eldar - I've tried and it sucks. it's better to just stick with one strategy (wraithgate assault or titan assault or ...) and stick with that, so the wraithgate on a titan is an inherent 1/2 way house between strategies.

It's an interesting thought experiment, but I imagine that if I made up an ETC list to play with (which I hope to do sometime next month), I doubt it would make the cut

It's a lot harder to take down a DC on a titan than to take down a void shield. Maybe the Tyranid regen rule? (1 DC in the end phase.)