Escalation Supplement, my take-

Ok, there's an internet firestorm going on right now about Superheavies now being allowed in standard games or Warhammer: 40k. I've read all sorts of sources, I've crunched some numbers, and I'm ready to pick a side on the issue.
But, I'm going to go through my sources first.

First! An Escalation Battle Report from Reecius over at Frontline Gaming:

For anyone who doesn't want to/can't watch that, it's a "street legal" army of Eldar with a Revenant Titan, Dark Eldar Allies, with a Tau formation in it, facing down a fairly well-balanced Daemons list.

This quick little video shows more or less all of what I'm concerned about with Escalation - that is, units that are thrown into the game with rules that pay no attention whatsoever to how it affects the game. Such as an extra-large blast that ignores saves of all kinds (armor, cover, Invulnerable), with a range longer than the game table, and on (in this case) a model that can move 36" in a turn and still fire everything, AND, it can fire at up to two different targets.
It ignores all saves, its guns instantly kill anything, ignores all terrain/movement restrictions, does some D3 wounds against bigger enemies, and is the fastest, hardest thing to kill we've seen on the table yet. In short, it has no flaws aside from points cost. And it will always make up those points, EXCEPT against an army tailor-made to beat it. 

Here's another, more even-handed battle report and rundown, again from Reecius (what can I say, the man does good work!)

This Battle Report (above) makes the case for how Super-Heavies *can* be fun, and in this case there were two Lords of War with no ranged D-weapons, and it did look like a much better time than the first game. The Ork Stompa did in the end use D-attacks in combat, but by then even a half decent MC would have finished the game anyway.
It did look like fun, and it's great for your average friendly game where discussions are had about what you are and aren't ok with playing.

And here, another blogger doing his best to be neutral, Nafka over at Faeit 212:

Now, here's my stance. 
I play games (all games, really) with the assumption that, if someone were to roll a die and assign me to a random army/list/side, I should have a chance to win. If I played well enough. That's my key hope, dream, even demand. And I expect, if I lose, to be beaten by skillful play, some luck, a little exceptional dice-rolling - not by a piano to the head.
Because, that's the heart of the game. It's about deployment, it's about using cover, having the tools to counter a variety of enemies, having to worry about a unit making its' saves, or your own units missing too much. For me, the best games are games that are close, where both players have *some* chance of winning. The single biggest key to that is having each unit have strengths and weaknesses. Maybe something is very very fast and hits hard, but is weak to counterfire. Maybe something is slow as molasses and has no gun, but it hits like a ton of bricks and is hard to kill.
It's not even a matter of having entire armies balanced, every single model should be good in some way and bad in some roughly equal way. And that would translate through to whole armies.

Unless you can have an entire army where every unit is the best at everything, taking only the best from each other army.

To me, the absolute biggest mistake these recent rules changes make is this:
They eliminate the fun factor.

A perfect list is no fun to play, you win without trying. Except against your hard-counter, in which case you have no chance of winning. In none of those games does anyone have any fun, because hard-counter lists are no fun to play with either.

You shouldn't have to do homework on how to beat the tippy-top lists to be competitive. You shouldn't be in a situation where the best you can possibly think up isn't as good as the super 'net lists and combos your opponents are looking up. You shouldn't have to shelve entire armies and your favorite Characters because they're so hopelessly outclassed. And you certainly shouldn't have to rush out and buy the latest and greatest, just to be able to stay on the table.

BUT, that brings me to another point. We all chose to collect our armies for a reason, and our commanders (this isn't a hobby anyone gets hooked on lightly). They change, and many of us have several of each, but we like to be able to bring any one of them to the table, have fun, and maybe pull off at least a tie or two.
In short, 40k is awesome. I love it, have loved it, and will always love it. That said, I will never field a Titan. I will not use Allies unless they are in a campaign, or make a LOT of sense in the fluff, and never just to have the best unit from another Codex just because. This won't be a problem in my friendly local games, but I will be forced to sigh and shake my head when I play local tournaments and find others who feel differently.

The big problem I come up against here is that I could easily play against someone (in a local tournament or larger tournament) who brings a Revenant Titan to the table. And, if one of those does land on the table and D-weapons are played as written, I'm dead. I have no defense against that, I can't bring my own Titan, and my chances of taking one down before it takes out my entire army first-turn are slim. The only possible hope would be to stay out of LoS with just about everything - but anyone who has played a local tournament knows that I can expect maybe one piece of true LoS blocking terrain, if any.

Yes, these "Power Lists" can be beaten. They can even be hard-countered. The internet is already buzzing with builds to counter super-heavies. But the last thing I want to do is build lists designed to hard-counter a single other list type. I want to have a balanced list, and fight against other at least reasonably balanced lists. I want to have to take casualties, to have tough choices, and to never have a runaway victory unless it was by pulling off a tactic that was appropriately brilliant and successful.

Here's what Feast of Blades Tournament organizers propose to do about the issue:

And, much as I don't like bans, I think they're right. I think they're isolating the core of what is truly hurting the fun, and keeping the spirit of the game. Good for them.

So that's my two-cents, whatever it's worth.

Gasp! A silver lining!

To shine a little light through the clouds in closing here, remember that if there is a Lord of War on the table and its army rolls to go first, the defender does get to Seize the Initiative on a 5+, every three Hull Points taken off a Lord of War grants an additional Victory Point, and an "Explodes!" result on the damage table, while it doesn't blow up the monster, does an additional D3 HP on top of the one for getting the hit. You get very lucky, and you can take out a Titan in a couple shots.

Also, Titans have no reliable defense against Flyers (I do love my Crimson Hunter something fierce!) and can be brought down by the usual anti-armor stuff. Bring some Lascannons, bring some Bright Lances (especially these, because Lances will put them on par with all other armor in the game).

If you want to bring down Titans as an Eldar player, Wraithguard, Fire Dragons, Fire Prisms and Wraithknights are obvious answers. However, against a D-gun a Wraithknight can be killed in one volley, watch out for that.
There is also a strong case to be made for Swooping Hawks, as their Haywire weapons don't care whether the armor they're tearing apart is a titan or a piece of tinfoil.  They can also be reliably placed out of sight of the Titan when arriving from Deep Strike, and are fast enough to have a decent chance of catching one.

I'll add more to this as I think of/hear of more ways to tackle the inevitable Lords of War as they march across tables worldwide.

Good luck, and happy gaming!