Warlocks should also be able to cap.

For instance, a proper 12-Eldar Squad(Wave Serpent has 12 crew capacity and is the vehicle Eldar should have as their main transport, not the Falcon), could have 2 Howling Banshees, 2 Striking Scorpions, 2 Warlocks in a 6-Eldar melee group and 2 Dire Avengers, 2 Dark Reapers and 2 Fire Dragons as the ranged side, providing both groups with 2 cappers.

The MoN is not a Basic Class for Chaos, it is merely a piece of Wargear for Basic Classes to equip.

Bladestorm and Rending should be represented by having the weapons with those attributes deal 16.7% damage through all Infantry Armor types, regardless of the weapon's Armor Penetration value. Additionally, Shuriken weaponry could penetrate thin cover/a single target in order to deal reduced damage to enemies behind that cover/target.
All Shuriken weaponry should have this attribute.

Other factions having 1 capper gives them 25% cap potential, while Eldar with 1 capper only have 14% cap potential, putting them at a disadvantage. Having 2 cappers puts the Eldar at 28.5% cap potential, making them more even with their opposition. All factions don't need a basic stealth class because all factions are not supposed to be exactly the same. They are supposed to have differences that make them unique to one another, such as the Eldar being faster and using Stealth to make up for their weaker Armor and lower Toughness values.

If bE knows what they are doing and implement it properly those should be the same Basic Class, starting off with a Shoota, Slugga and Choppa as default weapons. Whether they're an actual Shoota or Slugga Boy would depend on how they specialize their wargear and how they fight.

Balance is still important. Eldar having more than a single cap class is exactly about balance. Not only are there likely to be a lower percentage Dire Avengers than Tacticals, Traitors and Shoota Boys but their lower numbers also makes it easier for the enemy to target them specifically and prevent the enemy from capping points. Stealth/Air Gliding/Warlocks units exist to DIFFERENTIATE the Eldar and to help make up for other drawbacks they have in comparison to other factions(I.E. lower Armor/HP values). If you allow Warlocks to also capture then Eldar actually have an even chance against their enemies in regards to capturing locations. It actually does have to do with % chance to cap a point, while Class dedication ensures that there will be a lower percentage of Dire Avengers than Tacticals, Traitors or Shoota Boys, which in turn reduces the chance of Eldar being able to capture objectives.

Think about it: Tacticals and Orks have way more flexibility in terms of specialization than Eldar do, allowing them to either hyper-specialize themselves into a specific field like you mentioned, or doing the far more likely thing of working up a more balanced build that helps make up for the class' and its wargears' weaknesses. Tacticals even possess the capability to specialize for Anti-Tank fighting, while Eldar Dire Avengers are predominantly Anti-Infantry, regardless of specialization. Eldar are good at what they do but are limited in what each individual class can do.

If you give Warlocks the ability to cap the only difference you would see from them not being able to is more Warlocks pushing on objectives and supporting their team, spending less time on the outskirts of the battle. Now lines have not been blurred at all, as the combined percentage of Dire Avengers and Warlocks should match the percentage of Tacticals, Traitors and Shoota Boys, balancing the factions in capturing capability.

Way to go, thinking the wrong thing. Eldar Warlocks should be able to cap to maintain balance, as this allows Dire Avengers to turn their attention to engaging the enemy whenever a Warlock is around, enabling them to maintain their formation.

Not at all what Poked incorrectly said about blurring the lines. Yes, you have a Class specialized for Anti-Tank, another for Anti-Light Infantry, another for Anti-Heavy Infantry but there is no Eldar Class labeled as "Point Capturing Class". While the Dire Avenger is able to capture points that is merely an addition to their capabilities as a combatant. Likewise, it would merely be an addition to the support role the Warlock fills, allowing Dire Avengers some breathing room in deciding whether to go for the point capture or engage the enemy. Dire Avengers would still maintain relevancy due to their more generalist nature in comparison to other Eldar Classes. Again, capping points is simply an additional thing the Dire Avenger does, it is not their primary goal of the entire game. After all, if you kill your enemy before they take the point from you, you don't have to cap at all.

The Dire Avenger is a capper but will exist on the Eldar side in a smaller percentage than Tacticals, Traitors and Shoota Boys. The lower number of Dire Avengers makes it easier for C/SM/Orks to single out those targets and kill them so Eldar cannot cap in the first place, while the addition of Warlocks being able to cap allows for a far more balanced mix of capping classes for all sides.

Eldar don't understand that because they don't follow fail logic. They use intelligence and actual working logic.

Which, again, is where your logic fails as you cannot even see how it factually does disrupt balance.

There is a balance issue here. If you have to spawn more Tacticals/Traitors/Shoota Boys that just means your faction is playing wrong, as at the very least those classes should make up 25% of their faction's fighting force.
Dire Avengers being only 1 out of 7 Classes means that if the Eldar faction has a similar level of balance between the number of players using each Class, DAs will only make up 14% of the Eldar faction.
This lower percentage not only factually gives them a reduced likelihood of capturing an enemy point but leaves them more vulnerable to having those capturing classes focused and killed.
Stupidly saying players should just spawn as more DAs means that other Classes will end up hurt because players have to change from those classes to the DA, resulting in them having a lower percentage present on the battlefield(I.E. to get 25% Dire Avenger population you only have 9.5% Hawks and Banshees on the field.
The intelligent decision is to allow Warlocks to cap, so that as classes balance out the Eldar would have a 28.5% cap potential, far more balanced to the C/SM/Ork 25% than 14%.

Eldar are undoubtedly going to spawn as Dire Avengers but should not have to spawn as them more frequently at the expense of other Classes just to have a even chance against their enemies. It is not a matter of player incompetence at all it is a factual matter of game balance. A larger number of Basic Classes for the Eldar than every other faction means they are going to have a lower percentage of each Class than the other factions so the smart decision to provide Eldar a second cap class should be made.

I would like to point out the mistake you and all other players are making in thinking that Chaos and Orks have 2 cappers. The Mark of Nurgle is not a separate Class. It is merely a Wargear item that any Basic Class can equip.
As for the Orks, if bE is smart and does things the smart way then the Shoota/Slugga Boy will be the same exact Class, possessing a Choppa, Slugga and Shoota by default and being a "Shoota/Slugga" depending on whether they spend more time shootin' or choppin' and what wargear they use to specialize themselves.

So what will you do when devs don't make the decision to make warlocks a non capping class? Given the fact that it would lead to an army of warlocks whom can all heal one another. Like we used to get for apothacaries back in the day.

If you start evening what defines the factions out, then you have to even the factions out.

Traitor assault then, how does that alter the point in any way?

Hopefully not but if that is the case okay and then space marines need a second too. You can't have 3 factions with 2 and 1 without, that's the definition of imbalance.

Which is exactly the debate we are having right here, right now. I also concur people will complain until the classes/races are made the same, they always do, you'll see me in all the threads I come across and have time for arguing the opposite position based on faction balance rather than class balance.

Eldars specialty is a strength and a weakness, if you think the numbers used by the OP make sense take a look at the current meta where they make less sense. Tacticals are at what, 50% of all players on that faction, not 25%, I have no idea what the numbers will be for eldar but they won't be 14% if tacticals are anything to go by (if they are your in real trouble and you'll need 3 capping classes).

The % is further obscured because the number of classes will continually rise from here on out.

I'd just like to say that the Traitor Assault and Ground Assaults are only considered seperate classes due to archetyping. It provides your team with more information about what they can do if you know that they are a melee or a melee with a shield respectively, as opposed to being a ranged or jump unit. Chaos are intended to have a melee capture class due to their greater melee orientation, orks are getting 2 capture classes as well (sluggas and shootas) due to these classes being promoted to be particularly common. The other 2 factions have 1 capture class as part of their specializations. SM sacrafice a extra capping class for ground assaults with shields whom are better at defending points and forcing the enemy into bad positions. Eldar on the other hand have a number of overspecialized classes which promote higher levels of teamwork.

But is a shoota and slugga different classes or just different wargear for a boy? The MoN is just different wargear for the traitor--that is why it can cap. The shield bro is just different wargear for an assault--that is why it cannot cap.

Indeed although since the EC infographic they have stated they are distinct classes due to the distinct differences in function. Melee instead of ranged and ground instead of jump. As a result the orks will likely be the same.

The current meta as addressed by the devs had them admitting that the MoN has resulted in more wins for Chaos - among other reasons, like skill -which is heavily influenced by xenos players like you and I, and the class being downright OP. The stats also show that if you combined the MoN loadout with their ranged archetype, Chaos has nearly 75% of its force able to cap at any given time. So yes, technically, tacticals still dominate the battlefield, but Chaos enjoys a flexibility above that of other races in that they are more agressive at threatening the win conditions of each game. Sure, this follows Chaos's archetype and that's fine.

Nobody here really cares that SMs lose more. But it's important to factor in that because of their rigidity in roles, PuGs struggle to get their single capping class to the point. Only when under the leadership and direction of organized clans do SMs actually get the ball moving against CSMs PuGs, and you know as well as I do they still get destroyed by organized CSMs. There are many levels to this debate.

But I'm a bit shocked, you really mean to argue that the most rigid and specialized race in the game is going to be on a fair playing field when SM PuGs show evidence to the contrary? SMs and CSMs are already pretty similar. Eldar? They're totally alien in comparison.

That said, I'm ok with DAs still being the only capping class, if DAs can also be fearsomely melee orientated. The spreading of the roles in Eldar means that its core needs to versatile. The DAs show the most promise in this regard, with Warlocks being a close second, which is why if DAs aren't ever going to have a melee focus, then Warlocks can be made to pick up the slack at the expense of being able to heal. (Offensive vs. Support)

Only the Exarchs will be able to carry Melee Weapons and Shimmer Shields.
While I believe the Dire Avenger will be somewhat popular, I do not believe they will be as popular as you think, but only time can tell who is right
I think we have always known that the Eldar will require more skills to play, which is partly due to them being in need of using a good team composition, so I think we will do alright most of the time.

@Zaeryn
I do not believe they should allow support classes to cap, it would throw the balance way off and cause us to have a huge influx of Warlock players, which is already the most awaited/popular Aspect.
Also, I don't think it would be wise to have two Fire Dragons and two Dark Reapers in the same squad, unless it was a specific Anti-Vehicle Squad.

On the topic of Bladestorm; While I think allowing the weapon to deal a set amount of damage through armour (possibly augmented through modifications), I also fear that 16.7 % might be to much, but it all depends on how much damage the weapon does apart from this. I do not think it should be able to penetrate cover though.
Anyhow, it isn't certain we will see the Bladestorm ability ingame, since Brent didn't even know what it was when asked about it during a livestream

A lot of people (me included) have already said countless of times that the Eldar lack "cap potential", but most people just ignores that and tells us that it is an Eldar trait to be over specialized (which we all know).
Also, a somewhat large amount of players seems to believe that balance is less important than "git gud"...

There are no evidence that the Eldar's over specialization will be a strength to us, since bE will have to balance the Eldar faction to a level where all factions have an equal chance of winning (assuming both teams are equally skilled). If they made each Eldar Aspect stronger than the other factions equivalent as a way of balancing the lower amount of "capping potential", then it could cause a large imbalance between the factions due to a substantial amount of players and guilds choosing the Eldar solely due to being stronger. Though I guess this wouldn't matter a lot due to the Loyalists and Chaos Space Marines both being more popular in general.
It would also make it way less fun to play against Eldar, since you know that even a half decent team will be able to beat you easily, due to the individual class being stronger.


EDIT: Brent said that Dire Avengers and Fire Dragons are just a "split up Tactical" (which is somewhat right).
Livestream from the 30th of October 2015 at 1 hour, 32 minutes and 25 seconds should be where the question is asked.

Hey maybe if the devs feel that there are not enough dire avengers they'll buff the class into OPness so players cannot resist playing DA.

Or perhaps we're thinking about this too simplistically. In the new character customization screen there is a capture key slot. Its possible that DAs and tacticals will have access to a "free" capture key as well as upgraded ones for point cost, while other classes such as the fire dragon will need to spend points for even a basic capture key.
while other classes such as the Scorpion and Hawk would be locked out entirely from equipping the capture key.

Pic with big red arrow for emphasis.