OK, I went back through old PMs and e-mails. From what I can tell I put it in there and SG approved it to handle Ginger's second point for all the Farseer types in secondary lists (Mounted Farseers, Spiritseers, Seer Council, etc) so we didn't have to specifically spell them out. Given that this is actually a game affecting change though (as neither of us brought up the Warlock), I'm going to roll it back to "Farseer" instead of "Farsight".

It might have been "Farsight" in the TP for two years but I doubt it was used in many games as Warlocks are pretty rare to begin with (I've seen two fielded here since I started playing). Once more, I'm willing to bet no one noticed you could do it before Ginger brought it up. The Warlock is scary enough on its own before you factor in the ability to summon, playtests are definitely in order before that change gets approved.

Part of the reason for putting together the TP is so we can catch things like this as similar changes have snuck in over the years. There's a system for approval now, so we should stick to it.

Lastly, sorry for allowing this to sneak in. I took a heavy hand to the army lists to standardize and reduce the language. It wasn't my intention to introduce games changes however, just (ironically) reduce confusion and allow language to be dropped in where needed.

I don't think Warlock use is that rare, certainly its quite frequently seen in the UK. Letting it summon the Avatar is an unneeded boost.

SG never presented the change for approval so it was never approved. At best its a typo.

Saying that it's been used for the last two years is a fallacy. If that were true we would have seen it brought up sooner and we'd have plenty of battle reports of the Warlock summoning the avatar. From there it would be a simple matter for PFE to throw it up to Tim for him to rubber stamp it and the ERC to vote on it. We don't have reps like that though, hence my assumption that people simply didn't notice it.

The recent changes that were approved were absolutely tested, see PFE100's Beil-tan playtests:
search.php?keywords=&terms=all&author=pfe100&fid%5B%5D=84&sc=1&sf=titleonly&sk=t&sd=d&sr=topics&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

Not all were approved, mainly because more than a few of us thought they weren't tested enough.

As to the process for approval, see here:
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=24023

That's to get approval. Once it's approved it falls under the last paragraph "Retaining Approved".

I understand you control the tournament pack but what gives you the right to change the eldar list unilaterally?

Some of the changes that were put forward were judged "sufficiently playtested", and approved, based on the battle reports that PFE submitted. Those same battle reports were among those that I linked to.

The Warlock summon change didn't get put forward in the same way, hence it hasn't been voted on, and therefore hasn't been approved.

If you're still confused, PM me as we're just going in circles at this point and this is not Eldar specific.

I’m will be refocusing on the Biel-Tan again, and will be testing the following changes…

1) In the Strategy Phase of any turn place the Avatar within 15cm of a formation that contains a unit with the Farsight ability before making a strategy roll. The Avatar counts as its own formation and may only enter play in this manner. In the End Phase of that turn remove the Avatar before rallying formations. Once the Avatar has been removed it may not return.
2) Swords of Vaul: Replace any number of Falcons with an equal number of Fire prisms for free
3) Engine of Vaul: The second engine cost is now 200 points

I have attached a new PDF with the above changes and is called Biel-Tan 4.2A-2015-04-03-playtest
on the first page of this thread.

So my apologies for the refocus, but once the above is approved, then we can move forward......