I know I'm quite late to this discussion, but I have to add my two cents.
Innocent: I don't think this is quite true. How many points did you previously spend on refits for your ships in your nid lists? If you were bulking out your Hive Ships the odds are your list will trade those refits for most of the required escorts leaving you with a similar number of points to take vanguard and kraken.
This attitude is
exactly what is wrong with the "must take six escort drones" rule, and why it is so frustrating.
Many of the changes made to the tyranids in the 2010 FAQ don't seem like they were made by tyranid players who want to make the fleet more interesting, fun to play, and in line with the background of the race. On the contrary, they appear to have been made by tyranid
opponents who play against powergaming 'nid fleets, and dislike it enough to get their complaints head all the way to the top. This ruling, considering that the wording in the original rules is unambiguously the
opposite, makes me think it is an unfortunate case of the latter as well.
The problem with the attitude that you, Vaaish, and others who share your opinion, have, is that it's completely missing the point. Sure, escort drones are very good, and sure, I do like to take them in large numbers. But to take that and say it means there's not a problem
forcing me to take them in every game is nonsensical. We don't have a rule that for every cruiser they take, chaos players must take a Murder class. We don't have a rule that for every cruiser Orks take they must take three Brutes. That a ship is good is no justification for why you should
have to take it.
As for saying that it fits the fluff of the tyranids, this is both inaccurate and irrelevant. As far as inaccuracy; whilst it is very common for Hive Ships to be surrounded by hordes of escort drones, the main descriptor of Tyranids is 'adaptability.' If they are running into a situation where their escorts keep getting obliterated for no gain, they are not going to keep using small escorts. While it might be relatively rare to see a fleet without many or any escort drones, it is by no means improbable or unlikely, no more so than a venerable battle barge, inquisition black ship, rogue trader commanding a Carnage class, etc. As far as irrelevance, how fluffy the fleet lists are terms of encouraging/forcing players to take lists that represent the typical sights of the 41st millineum has
never been a priority. The original publication of the BFG rulebook talked about how there's no reason not to take whatever fleet list you want if it could happen. The current rules committee seems to, where tyranids aren't involved, adhere to these principles as well, as with the aforementioned examples.
My main issue, though, comes from the statement, "How many points did you previously spend on refits for your ships in your nid lists? If you were bulking out your Hive Ships the odds are your list will trade those refits for most of the required escorts leaving you with a similar number of points to take vanguard and kraken." This statement
assumes that all 'nid players do little other than take hulked-out hiveships and plod down the board spitting out ordnance.
But what if I
wasn't bulking out my hiveships? After all,
my answer to that question would be "zero." I've taken huge hiveships before, but I find I enjoy taking lists that have a few hiveships as a focal point and a lot of cruisers, vanguards, and kraken for envelopment. Now all of the lists I like to run are illegal without major tweaking - redesign, really. You might argue that 15 points a pop is cheap, and that's true, but when you have to take
eighteen drones in a three-hiveship list... 270 points is a lot of points! But okay, let's say I'll likely be getting some escort drones anyway, so the normal 'penalty' might be more along the lines of 150 points or so. That's still four to five kraken, six vanguards, or a cruiser I could have had, the difference between making a 'flank and envelop' list viable or not. (Not to mention if I actually didn't want to take any escorts...)
Where the whole "the odds are your list will trade those refits for most of the required escorts," idea becomes patently ridiculous is when you remember that the 2010 FAQ
also restricts when and where Tyranids players may use these upgrades in the first place. Now, according to the FAQ, Tyranid players aren't taking all of those refits anyway, so why force them to spend the points in, after a fashion, the same place? I thought the idea was to encourage tyranid players to do something else?
Saying something that boils down to 'it's a justified change because all 'nid players are the same powergaming cheeseball,' is pretty insulting. This being a hobby game, not just a board game, the composition rules are supposed to
encourage people. Telling 'nid players to screw off because nobody liked playing against them is no way to encourage them to play, to engage them in the hobby. The same people who decided that 'nids have to take six drones per ship came up with venerable battle barges for space marines. This uncommon (and therefore unfluffy, according to some lines of reasoning) option was created in the name of allowing space marine lists to have more variety, so it absolutely
stuns me that the commitee would then turn around and say, "Oh, but 'nid players should have their options
restricted, shouldn't they?" What could possibly be the justification?