Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes, but as I stated before, at least tournement outcomes include a broader base of players to draw a conclusion from...I.E. Statistics.

In a debate....Statistics > "I did this"

Modquisition on:

The cranky old man of Dakka has been awakened.
Temporary block whilst I see if people need to get off my lawn.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK, warnings have been given out. Be advised that at this point forward, posts should follow Rule #1, or risk strong disciplinary action, including suspension and banning if appropriate.

If you have made an errant post that appears after this warning, and come across the warning after, you are strongly advised to edit that post quickly. All posts in violation after this warning will be treated most harshly.

I will be occasionally monitoring this thread.

So how about them Orks?

Probably better I just shut up.

Yeah those stinkin' Orks...

thehod wrote:So how about them Orks?

That they could win a Super Bowl, uhm...Grand Tournament, with Barry Switzer as their Coach, uhm...Player, it tells you just how dominant that team was in the mid 90's. And as a diehart Steelers fan, it pains me to say that.

Let the dust settle on this tourney season. New IG puts a crimp in Orks. Using Deffrollas against vehicles is a huge boon to Orks. Orks have been knocked down the metagame pecking order a little. But, Orks still have some big advantages - notably being a non-MEQ army in a game where 2/3 of the armies at a tourney are an MEQ. Orks might need matchups a little more than some other armies, but they can still win a lot of tourney games. I can't believe that's just because all the other players are idiots.

Elessar wrote:Burnas. Zzap Gunz. Speed Freeks Codex in general. Tankbustas. Choppa rule.

I think you'll find a 3+ is SIGNIFICANTLY worse than a 2+.

I don't agree with most of what this guy says, but he is right on the money here. That KoS codex was crazy good. Imagine if right now, you could have 2 Warbosses, and 2 KFFs? Imagine if the 2 Burnaz in Snkkrots mob rolled 2d6 for Armor Penetration? Imagine if Grot Riggers were rolled at the start of your turn, so you could repair your vehicle, then move in the same turn. Looted Land Raiders anyone?


Other stuff coming, but that needed to be clarified.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:All experience is personal to someone, including tournament outcomes.

I think what he means, is that you can't give your opinion as a fact, based solely on your personal experience. That is all relative. You can base your opinion off of that all you want, but don't come here spouting it as fact.


Clay

Primarch wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:All experience is personal to someone, including tournament outcomes.

I think what he means, is that you can't give your opinion as a fact, based solely on your personal experience. That is all relative. You can base your opinion off of that all you want, but don't come here spouting it as fact.


Clay

Fair point, but I'm unclear on where I did that.

Frazzled wrote:posts should follow Rule #1

No doubt.
No matter how bad-ass we might all think our army is, were all still playing with toy soldiers.
There is an inherent limit on the serious factor associated with it.

Grey Knight Luke wrote:My daemonhunter list is actually very effective. I run 5 land raiders (2 crusaders, 3 standard). I have grey knight squads inside, except for 2 that have inquisitors. I win a good majority of my games with this list, as it is very good against most all-comers, typically there is just not enough anti-tank.

Emphasis mine. Your army doesn't rock; your opponents fail at 5th Edition.

I thought orks were a pushover army.

And well you might, since they have less anti-tank than most!

Then I played the first round of 'Ard Boyz against a 3 Battlewagon list with 2 full squads of lootas.

What else did he have, because that right thurr is barely 800pts assuming he didn't have ridiculous wargear on the Wagons.

Did the battle wagons survive? No. Did the lootaz survive? One squad did. Who won? Orks.

How?...

If I killed some of his guys, it didn't matter. He controlled the objectives, and he protected the objectives he controlled. I don't know if orks can ever overpower an opponent. But they can win games in 5th edition, they can take objectives arguably better than any other troop in the game (30 fearless orks is hard to take off of an objective).

Nowhere near as hard as 10 Grey Knights in a Land Raider.

Seriously, how did you not win?

They can take their kill points too (30 orks vs 10 marines is an attrition battle, and if orks get the charge...).

You had fething Grey Knights! Grey Knights! In Land Raiders! How do you not kill 30 Orks every single turn with each full squad of Grey Knights? Moreover, how will the Orks EVER get the charge if you're in a Land Raider?

How did he win? On every charge he got his orks all the way around my vehicles. When his powerclaw killed it, my grey knights couldn't get out, and were killed. I understand that a lot of units can do this, but with 30 models it is a lot easier.

You sir have done something terribly wrong.

I don't care for orks, I will never play a game with them. But do they suck? are they a lower tier army? No.

You lose to them and that makes them awesome? That's not how it works, m'friend. Otherwise Grey Knights would be the top tier of everything, and would in fact be so competetive that they'd have to invent a whole 'nuther tournament just to contain the competetiveness. Seriously, these boys can do everything BUT kill tanks; and even then, give them a charge at something AV10 and they'll stand a reasonable chance of whacking it. I win with them a lot, and I lose to them a lot as well.

Unfortunately personal experience counts for nothing in terms of determining how competetive an army is. Which is a shame, because I quite like the idea of winning the Throne of Skulls with my Stern/ BroCap Psycannon-spam list.

Hulksmash wrote:1) A strong army will still have problems with their rock army. You give me any build of any army and i'll show you a solid take all comers list that is the paper to your rock. You'll say well if everyone built competatively then those take all comers wouldn't be there which is silly but seems to be what you really believe. Maybe competative 40k only has 4 viable army builds according to you.

According to the ruleset. Blame me for whatever, don't pin 5th Edition on me.

Again you didn't understand what I was saying about the Tau or your choosing to be deliberately obtuse.

MAKE me understand, then. All you seem to be saying is "Tau suck against hordes", which is patently not true.

Which is your choice and cool but your still yelling orks suck with no proof to back it up.

That's not what I'm doing at all, and I've laid my arguments bare over the course of two threads now. If you're still not getting it try going back and perusing them again.

2) In Regard to the Tyrannid comments.

12 Warriors in 2 squads (at 2k) w/12 deathspitters and +1st is a lot of boom. Add in 4 Carnies (3 heavy carnies) and 2 Hive Tyrants and you've got a very very respectable firepower list that can brawl up close. You use gaunts and create a leveled cover system which keeps your shooters and heavy hitters safe as they close. I said spam and I meant spam. 12 St6 Blast Templates is more than any other army out there can put out so it is spamming an excellent unit.

12 BS2 templates. For 300+ points. It's not the worst way to run Tyranids I suppose, I'll give you that, not at 2000pts anyway. I'd wonder how it'd cope with AV12, but you've probably got some sort of anecdote about pweening a Mechvet list to prove how awesome it is.

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:Yes, let me correct myself: I’m sure some do, and I’m sure others don’t. Even skimming the abundance of BatReps here and elsewhere is ample evidence of that. Some go go great lengths to ensure they stand a chance while others simply take what they have painted or like best at that point.

There's also a third "some" who run balanced 5th Edition lists rather than taking "cheese" lists (the 1st "some") or whatever they have to hand (the 2nd "some"). The third "some" are the minority.

Even then there is simply no good reason why only Orks (or shall we say: supposedly weak codices) would show up with a competetive list - especially when that isn't even possible from those books, which is what you assert so forcefully.

It isn't. Ork players don't make competetive lists - at best they look through their Codex and think "opponents won't be able to deal with this -- I'll put that in my list!". Look at the AV14 coping strategies for evidence. Most players use the balance of their list to cope with AV14-heavy armies; Ork players throw Battlewagons and Power Klaws galore at them in an attempt to out-spam the Raider-spam.

There is no reason why they should show up with a better list than others. Some people have suggested that because the die-hard Ork players had to put up with an outdated codex for so long, they have gotten better at playing than people with more “forgiving” (newer, more competitive) armies but I don't think that is right. Despite being the target of much ridicule, SM players (or Eldar or IG players) will and can be just as experienced.

None of those three armies are anywhere near as forgiving as the Orks. Inb4 "BUT IG CAN GET FIVE MILLIONSANDDREAD TANKS!" Build a 1500pt IG list and see what you get for your points.

So you keep asserting, yes. To be honest - whoah, extremely bad pun avoided at the last second! -,

Just as well, really. You're not Frank enough to pull it off ;D

I believe that this will remain a minority opinion for the foreseeable future though. Not that I think that you care but hey.

It will, and indeed I hope it does too; that way when I come to a club and kick the reigning super-champ Ork player around the table with my grotty Tau list, people will think I'm awesome.

It isn’t? This sentence evoked lots of mental question marks: "If people stopped gearing their armies towards playing people they play every week and instead built them towards taking on 5th Edition armies, the Orks would most likely stop doing well."

As in, the opponents that they play every week. Codexes don't enter into it. If you play an Ork player every week you will most likely gear your list towards beating him. That's fine; just don't call that list an "all-comers" list, take it to a tournament and expect it to be able to beat every Ork list going.

Ergo, they at least take Orks into account. Why in all the heavens do they then not fare any better? Why would they be stupid if those lists they actually bring are geared to tackle Orks, too, since if they play them and gear towards what they play against this is the conclusion? I’m afraid simply calling everyone stupid doesn’t cut it.

If I'm Doin' It Wrong, and I usually play an Ork player who takes no vehicles and a million SHoota Boyz, my list will be geared towards killing lots of Boyz. If I then Do It Moar Wrong, go to a tournament and face a Battlewagon spammer, my list is geared towards killing lots of Boyz. Do you see how that's bad?

People take stupid, uncompetetive lists. People gear their armies towards what they are used to play against. If they indeed play against Orks much, then gearing against them (as well) is neither stupid nor uncompetetive but quite reasonable - regardless of what we think about the quality of the codex, there's no doubt that there are many Ork players at tournaments.

All of whom play a list that is a variation on a theme - the theme being "boy howdy I sure hope my opponent hasn't got any [x/y/z] to kill/ avoid my [a/b/c]!" A list that contains lots of [x] to counter lots of [a] will invariably fail it against a list that contains much [b] instead. Simple algebra. If, however, your list contains no specific counters to [a/b/c], but is built and played around the idea of tackling everything, you'll do better.

If however the lists are as stupid as you think, then they are not optimized to deal with Orks, and that can only mean that people do not play against them. In every other case, they would take that into account. Whatever way I look at it, your reasoning breaks down at one point or the other.

Because you're looking at it wrong.

Regardless of these considerations, there is another aspect that I do not understand: If the Ork codex is not a proper 5th edition codex, then how does optimizing other lists to tackle 5th edition codices help against one that isn't?

First, you tell me how you optimise an Ork list. How do you do that? Lootas? Rokkits? Tankbustas (alololol)? What?

Way I see it you can't optimise an Ork list. It relies on the opponent being unable to deal with what it brings to the table, and as such the closest to "optimisation" you could get would be to take a little bit of everything. Which would suck, because then you wouldn't have enough of anything to overwhelm an unprepared oppo. You could also just look at the tourney scene, look through other Codexes, see what Ork units people whinge about most, and cram your list with those. That way you'll rock 90% of people you play, until you hit someone who knows what they're doing at which point you either play the game of your life or get Massacred.

Keep your internet platitudes, they bore me.

Platitudes?... Well lah-di-dah, Mr. "I have failed to comprehend anything that's been going on thus far but I demand in a Teutonically arrogant way that you answer my non-points anyway!"

Elessar wrote:

Primarch wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:All experience is personal to someone, including tournament outcomes.

I think what he means, is that you can't give your opinion as a fact, based solely on your personal experience. That is all relative. You can base your opinion off of that all you want, but don't come here spouting it as fact.


Clay

Fair point, but I'm unclear on where I did that.

4) Few (if any) of you play the game right. Insult? No, fact.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

It isn't. Ork players don't make competetive lists - at best they look through their Codex and think "opponents won't be able to deal with this -- I'll put that in my list!". Look at the AV14 coping strategies for evidence. Most players use the balance of their list to cope with AV14-heavy armies; Ork players throw Battlewagons and Power Klaws galore at them in an attempt to out-spam the Raider-spam.

Unfair generalization here Frank. You don't seem to lump all Marine players into one category, why would you lump all Ork players into one?


Secondly, if you played an army with no melta weapons, wouldn't you figure out what in the codex could kill a Land Raider and include at least some of that? I really think you are being very close minded about this. You spout off a lot of things as if they were fact, then ignore anyone else who counters with a different opinion. Everyone's opinion in this thread is worth exactly the same thing, nothing. That's all you have is opinion, and my opinion is different.

The people in the Stelek camp have a perfect opportunity to show us all up in the Ard Boyz. They should bring a "best of" list from his site, or put together a competitive all-comers 5th edition codex list, and wipe us all out right? Let's see how well that works out for them in round 2.


The thing is, I live/play in a very competitive environment in the Atlanta area. There are a lot of strong players here, and they don't bring "weak" lists. These guys rummage through the codexes with the best of them, and find every competitive edge they can get their hands on, and guess what? They bring Chaos with Lash, Daemons, Orks and the like to events. That runs exactly opposite of what you and Stelek have to say.

Now, are these guys such bad players that they have it that far wrong? No way, no how, at least until you prove otherwise. I would put 5+ guys one on one from the Atlanta metro area up against anyone with total confidence that they wouldn't get rolled, and in fact, would win more than they lost. Naturally, this is all my opinion, and means as much to you, as your opinion means to me. But you can see how different conclusions can be drawn here.


Either way, i am looking forward to seeing how Orks do in round 2.


Clay

Ah, I understand. Thanks.

Now we've established the where, let's explain the why.

Infantry do not have a 360* arc of sight. Dreadnoughts do not have a 360* arc of sight. Most people play they do. This is wrong.

Little to do with Orks (except that it invariably makes Tankbustas better.)

I think what he means, is that you can't give your opinion as a fact, based solely on your personal experience. That is all relative. You can base your opinion off of that all you want, but don't come here spouting it as fact.

I know what his point was, but it's hypocritical to cite one set of biased information (tournament results) as being "good" data and another set (someone's experience) as being "bad" data. Frankly, they're both bad (with respect to objectivity), and for the same reasons.

Elessar wrote:Ah, I understand. Thanks.

Now we've established the where, let's explain the why.

Infantry do not have a 360* arc of sight. Dreadnoughts do not have a 360* arc of sight. Most people play they do. This is wrong.

Little to do with Orks (except that it invariably makes Tankbustas better.)

Infantry don't have 360 arc of sight?
Really?

Jamora wrote:

Infantry don't have 360 arc of sight?
Really?

Really.

P.16:
Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing
model to any part of the body of at least one of the
models in the target unit (for ‘body’ we mean its head,
torso, legs and arms).

Danny Internets wrote:

I think what he means, is that you can't give your opinion as a fact, based solely on your personal experience. That is all relative. You can base your opinion off of that all you want, but don't come here spouting it as fact.

I know what his point was, but it's hypocritical to cite one set of biased information (tournament results) as being "good" data and another set (someone's experience) as being "bad" data. Frankly, they're both bad (with respect to objectivity), and for the same reasons.

While that may be true in general;


You can certainly draw more conclusions from a National event, than a local environment.




Clay

Primarch wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

I think what he means, is that you can't give your opinion as a fact, based solely on your personal experience. That is all relative. You can base your opinion off of that all you want, but don't come here spouting it as fact.

I know what his point was, but it's hypocritical to cite one set of biased information (tournament results) as being "good" data and another set (someone's experience) as being "bad" data. Frankly, they're both bad (with respect to objectivity), and for the same reasons.

While that may be true in general;


You can certainly draw more conclusions from a National event, than a local environment.




Clay

Example: Who's the better swimmer? The winner of a local competition, or the winner of the Olympics

Danny Internets wrote:

Jamora wrote:

Infantry don't have 360 arc of sight?
Really?

Really.

P.16:
Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing
model to any part of the body of at least one of the
models in the target unit (for ‘body’ we mean its head,
torso, legs and arms).

Danny, I love you. <3

Most people need that spelled out to them...it's gotten pretty depressing.


In reference to the local vs National debate:

I refer you back to my information about the UK ToS Finals - most players didn't care about winning, so played fluff/fun armies.
Also, if Stelek is to be believed on the issue, his local area has been using Mech lists better and longer than the majority of players. I know some who still don't see how and why Mech bets them every time. Mostly young players, but the point stands.

I have no doubt that the metagame of most Dakkaites is better than the average Sri Lankan player. For example, no offence to Sri Lankans.

Jamora wrote:

Example: Who's the better swimmer? The winner of a local competition, or the winner of the Olympics

Our local tournaments have 40 people.
The 'Ard Boyz tournament I just attended, part of a national event, had 3 participants including myself.

The latter is a better indicator of skill/prowess/etc...how?

Anyways, the point is that every bit of data gathered is biased one one way or the other, so you can't simply discount some opinions and not others based on that fact, which is pervasive.

I know we aren't talking RAW here, because since Models in the firing unit do not block line of sight, cant he just look through the back of his own head? I mean, thats the RAW version, which would indeed mean they have a 360 degree arc of fire....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:

Jamora wrote:

Example: Who's the better swimmer? The winner of a local competition, or the winner of the Olympics

Our local tournaments have 40 people.
The 'Ard Boyz tournament I just attended, part of a national event, had 3 participants including myself.

The latter is a better indicator of skill/prowess/etc...how?

Anyways, the point is that every bit of data gathered is biased one one way or the other, so you can't simply discount some opinions and not others based on that fact, which is pervasive.

Of course the first round will be like that Danny. But in the 2nd round it should get better, and then the finals will get even better. FAR better of an example than your local 40 man RTT events. The point is, we aren't discounting Frank's data, he is discounting ours. Our point, is that basically, our opinion is based on something that involves a better cross reference of players than a local event does. Does that mean its the final word on how good Orks are? No. Does it mean we have proven our point? No. What it does, is provide a more clear example of why we believe what we do than Frank saying over and over again that tournament results don't mean a thing, only his opinion matters.



Clay



Clay

Clay,

I agree, point being that simply being a national event don't necessarily bestow validity to conclusions drawn from its results.

Furthermore, the more barriers to entry for the events (traveling long distances, travel expenses, etc) the more you bias the results by weeding out players not willing or not able to participate. For instance, I love tournaments, but I'm not willing to fly across the country and pay over $100 to participate in a GT; I could be the greatest player in the world, but you'd never know it if you restrict the discussion to the results of national tournaments.

Danny Internets wrote:

Jamora wrote:

Example: Who's the better swimmer? The winner of a local competition, or the winner of the Olympics

Our local tournaments have 40 people.
The 'Ard Boyz tournament I just attended, part of a national event, had 3 participants including myself.

The latter is a better indicator of skill/prowess/etc...how?

Anyways, the point is that every bit of data gathered is biased one one way or the other, so you can't simply discount some opinions and not others based on that fact, which is pervasive.

I'm just curious here...what were the reasons of these 37 people to not attend 'Ard Boyz? Just seems a bit strange, as our Ard Boyz turnout was roughly the same as the RTTs in the same shop. It just seems crazy that out of 40 people dedicated enough to WH40k to go to RTTs(and wow 40 person RTTs..that is awesome!!), only 3 of them would attend a tournament with actual cash prizes... I'm just curious as to what motivated them.

Danny Internets wrote:Clay,

I agree, point being that simply being a national event don't necessarily bestow validity to conclusions drawn from its results.

Furthermore, the more barriers to entry for the events (traveling long distances, travel expenses, etc) the more you bias the results by weeding out players not willing or not able to participate. For instance, I love tournaments, but I'm not willing to fly across the country and pay over $100 to participate in a GT; I could be the greatest player in the world, but you'd never know it if you restrict the discussion to the results of national tournaments.

Point taken, but shouldn't you be addressing Frank here? We are saying that national level events, Adepticon, Ard Boyz, and things like that are STILL a better gauge of how good an army is, than a local group playing against themselves. While Frank, is disregarding any national level event, to insist that local play has born out the FACT that Orks aren't a competitive list at all.




Clay

Danny Internets wrote:

Jamora wrote:

Infantry don't have 360 arc of sight?
Really?

Really.

P.16:
Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing
model to any part of the body of at least one of the
models in the target unit (for ‘body’ we mean its head,
torso, legs and arms).

And you can always turn to face whatever you want to in the shooting phase. I don't have my BGB handy but even in some of the examples for movement/shooting they give early in the book, I', pretty sure it says something along the lines that it does not matter which way you face your troops but it always looks good to have two armies face to face or something to that regard.

I seriously don't see what the problem is here. The whole arguement is based on subjective opinions; Orks are bad because they can't deal with AV14. Fair enough, does that make Dark Eldar the best because they can take 30 Lances and eat your AV14 all day long? But can't Orks deal with everything else just as well as anybody else?

I am really confused with this discussion. Orks suck because they suck against Landraiders? Ok, what's 3 lascannons going to do against 30 boys and a PK? Oh, the guys inside the raider are going to bail out and fight- nice, you just lost your AV14 advantage. I'm still befuzzled (c)

augustus5 wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Jamora wrote:

Infantry don't have 360 arc of sight?
Really?

Really.

P.16:
Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing
model to any part of the body of at least one of the
models in the target unit (for ‘body’ we mean its head,
torso, legs and arms).

And you can always turn to face whatever you want to in the shooting phase. I don't have my BGB handy but even in some of the examples for movement/shooting they give early in the book, I', pretty sure it says something along the lines that it does not matter which way you face your troops but it always looks good to have two armies face to face or something to that regard.

Yes you are right, Danny Internets and Elessar are also right, but what they are saying doesn't really matter(in most cases) as you can turn your models to face whatever you want to shoot anyway.

pg 12. As you move the models in a unit, they can turn to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover. Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase, so don't worry about which way they are pointing at the end of their movement phase.

Most people don't turn their models to face things, because it's a waste of time, most of the time, to do so. In some cases I can see the need to check LOS, but most of the time it's obvious.

GG

Yes, but target is determined by LOS - you cannot turn to shoot something that no member of the unit was not previously facing.

Page 16 defines targeting, and states you require LOS to declare something a target. Ergo, you must end the MOVEMENT phase facing any potential target.

Back to Orks.

@Keyasa:
AV14 is part of the problem.
Seer Coucils
MechDar and DEldar in general
TH/SS Termies
IG, esp AirCav
Mech Witch Hunters
Even Dreads when Telion snipes you in the Nob.

Also, apart from on Vendettas, who on earth has 3 Lascannons on something?!?
All of these are things Orks have great difficulty with/find impossible. If it were only AV14, there'd be no argument.

Elessar wrote:Yes, but target is determined by LOS - you cannot turn to shoot something that no member of the unit was not previously facing.

Page 16 defines targeting, and states you require LOS to declare something a target. Ergo, you must end the MOVEMENT phase facing any potential target.

Sorry.. but I believe your blatantly wrong on this, so as not to derail this thread, I'll start a thread over in the rules questions area.

GG

What army can make a balanced list that *can* deal with all those things?

So let me get this straight, this whole argument has come down to two talking points.

1. Orks have difficulty with some things.

2. The results of tournament nation wide is to subjective to be used as evidence.

To the first point, just because an army has difficulties and weaknesses versus certain units doesn't make them any less competitive if you compare that to how they perform in other areas of the game. This argument relies on discussing Orks in a Vacuum and taking out the consideration that other fifth edition codexes don't have their own weaknesses. Unless you want to make the argument that Guard suck because they have no good answer to close combat!

To the second point, sure the national results are subjective, but it doesn't discount that there are certain trends in competitive 40k. There are a lot of Ork players winning a lot of games in a lot of tournaments. THe best argument against this simple fact has been "well their opponent's must have sucked". I have seen some of the best gamers in my area play games featuring Orks, IG, and Space Marines. The Orks always seem to hold their own.

So what does this all mean, I think we are experiencing something that 40k players are just not used to, a more balanced game.

To the second point, sure the national results are subjective, but it doesn't discount that there are certain trends in competitive 40k. There are a lot of Ork players winning a lot of games in a lot of tournaments. THe best argument against this simple fact has been "well their opponent's must have sucked". I have seen some of the best gamers in my area play games featuring Orks, IG, and Space Marines. The Orks always seem to hold their own.

One of the trends in 40k is that people tend to play bad (ie, poorly optimized) lists, even in tournaments. This has been stated numerous times throughout the thread, and is central to the position that Orks are not competitive.

And to counterbalance your own experience, my club has a lot of competitive players that perform exceedingly well in tournaments. None of us have any problems with Orks, and as a result Orks tend to fare very poorly in this area (with respect to competitive events). In fact, I haven't seen an Ork player even place in the top 3 in any of the last 12 tournaments I've attended in the past year.