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.

Hello guys,

If you were given the task to design the Orks would you go back to 2nd in which the greenskins had a more similar appearance and ballistic skill of humans, keep the gorilla looks and bad shooting skills which they have now or even come up with something entirely new?

I would like to read your ideas.

I wouldn't change it, I feel the core concept of a really powerful physical form (high S and T) with relatively mediocre or outright poor skills in using that form (WS and BS) is excellent. It provides them a mechanical and thematic niche on the tabletop, while also fitting well with their fluff of being engineered for supernatural biology but still fighting on instinct with little to nothing resembling training.

The basic ork boy is the equivalent of giving a random human a gun and pointing them toward the enemy. That it is effective speaks to how crazy good their biology is, not the skillful nuance of their instinctive combat behavior. And I think the way they have been designed in 40k reflect that.

What I would do is make a baseline human S2 T2 because that would bring the stats of elite armies into line with the fluff as opposed to some random catachan being the same strength as a space marine.

BS is just a number, you can make them work as a shooting faction. You just need to give them more or better dice even if it is not as obvious as Tau with lightmarkers to upgrade their shooting outpoot.


I believe 40k Orks are fine as they are. The only change I would make is to make all their kits 33% cheaper moneywise and make most of their stuff (the one that needs it) cheaper point wise and if needed, slighly worse than their current incarnation for a proper horde army on the table.

I can see the appeal of 2nd, but I also like the Mad Max style gorillas. Could go either way...

The important thing to me is modularity, but then again I loved the Gorkamorka Orks so what do I know.

Even in 2nd I though Orks were the physical equivalent of astartes, not humans Just with poor training, poor gear and poor armour.

mrFickle wrote:
Even in 2nd I though Orks were the physical equivalent of astartes, not humans Just with poor training, poor gear and poor armour.

Agreed. Though I would say Imperium instead of SM:

Scouts / Kommandos
Assault Marines / Stormboyz
Veterans / Nobz
Devastators / Lootas
Dreadnought / Ork Dreadnought
Bikes / Bikes
Attack Bike / Buggy & Wartrakk
Rhino / Trukk
Techmarine with Conversion Beamer (5th)/ Mek with Shock Attack Gun
Apothecary / Painboy

Thudd Guns / Artillery operated by grots
Rough Riders / Boarboyz

Imperial Knight / Stompa
Warlord Titan / Great Gargant
Reaver Titan / Slasha Gargant

The only thing I would change is to add more of the fun old abilities back, and more incentives for custom kitbashes ect.

I remember going against some truly epic custom ork creations back in the day, and I'm a little sad that these days there is a lot less of that (although my last opponent did have a really good battlewagon kitbashed out of a bunch of different models!)

I think orks are great the way the are now, but I would curb the "one faction = one BS" dogma completely.

If 9th has shown one thing, it's that killing off abstractions that were only kept around just because of tradition like "nurgle has FNP" and "orks are T4" to make the armies play and feel more closer to how they are portrayed the fluff is one of the best big chances GW has done for the game in a long time.

I think the game would improve by a lot if shooting units of an army weren't bound to an arbitrary number, only for the devs to invent a pile of rules to make it good anyways. If a unit is supposed to be good at shooting, give it a good BS and don't screw around with re-rolls, shoot twice or exploding sixes just to make them great despite BS 4+/5+. Keep it simple and stupid.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Hello guys,

If you were given the task to design the Orks would you go back to 2nd in which the greenskins had a more similar appearance and ballistic skill of humans, keep the gorilla looks and bad shooting skills which they have now or even come up with something entirely new?

I would like to read your ideas.

If orks started hiting on +4, +1 with freebooters, kept t5 and the cost they have now, there would be some mighty evil things going on in the enviroment right now. They are already good, as long as you run a lot of vehicles, and were good even before the new codex droped.

Esthetic wise, I don't really care. They have close to zero impact on rules and if they do, then it is generally a nerf thing.

I've been thinking about this topic in general a lot recently (redesigns and reimaginings). I'm generally happy with 40K and so I'm not the market for redesigns, but I've decided if the studio artists want to do it, I'm in favour. They should be allowed to make creative decisions and follow what they think is cool, and if I'm not the market for that, that's fine by me. So I think if the studio wants to redesign Orks, they should go for it.

For myself though, I've loved Orks since 2e in concept but when I really went Waaagh! crazy was with the Brian Nelson release and I LOVED the changes to the statline then to make them worse shots but lethal in melee, I felt it fit the fiction much better and differentiated them from guardsmen in a really satisfying way. So that version of Orks will always be my favourite.

 Jidmah wrote:
I think orks are great the way the are now, but I would curb the "one faction = one BS" dogma completely.

If 9th has shown one thing, it's that killing off abstractions that were only kept around just because of tradition like "nurgle has FNP" and "orks are T4" to make the armies play and feel more closer to how they are portrayed the fluff is one of the best big chances GW has done for the game in a long time.

I think the game would improve by a lot if shooting units of an army weren't bound to an arbitrary number, only for the devs to invent a pile of rules to make it good anyways. If a unit is supposed to be good at shooting, give it a good BS and don't screw around with re-rolls, shoot twice or exploding sixes just to make them great despite BS 4+/5+. Keep it simple and stupid.

Yeah, 100% agree with all this.

My only beef with Orks as they currently stand is the shift towards single-Clan warbands, treating Clans as analogous to Space Marine Chapters, rather than the rules reflecting how they've always previously worked in the fluff, with Orks of all different Clans intermingling in the same tribe.

Yeah I also prefer the "mixed clan" approach, but I can see why having clans analogous to chapters is useful for game designers.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah I also prefer the "mixed clan" approach, but I can see why having clans analogous to chapters is useful for game designers.

I mean, there's ways round it if you can be arsed, which I guess in this instance they can't.

They could just use the different Waaagh!'s and ork empires instead of cultures, but I guess it wouldn't be as iconic.

I started with painting my Waaagh! in multiple clan colors back in 5th where every unit had a strong tie to one clan or another. So warbikers were red, lootas blue, MANz yellow and so on.

The advantage of that for me today is I can just pick whatever culture I want for my current army, with the downside of having to pick just one culture for the entire army because anything else would confuse the heck out of my opponent

 Nazrak wrote:


My only beef with Orks as they currently stand is the shift towards single-Clan warbands, treating Clans as analogous to Space Marine Chapters, rather than the rules reflecting how they've always previously worked in the fluff, with Orks of all different Clans intermingling in the same tribe.

Totally agree. Having a similar combined-arms approach was something GW made a good attempt to cater for in the Dark Eldar codex, and I don't understand why Orks weren't done in a similar way.

It also results in iconic units like Ghazghkull becoming too locked into a particular sub-faction when it's entirely in keeping with the fluff for him to lead multiple clans.

 Jidmah wrote:
They could just use the different Waaagh!'s and ork empires instead of cultures, but I guess it wouldn't be as iconic.

I started with painting my Waaagh! in multiple clan colors back in 5th where every unit had a strong tie to one clan or another. So warbikers were red, lootas blue, MANz yellow and so on.

The advantage of that for me today is I can just pick whatever culture I want for my current army, with the downside of having to pick just one culture for the entire army because anything else would confuse the heck out of my opponent

Same, I've got various bits scattered around various Clans. I think I'm leaning towards just going "they all use the Bad Moon Kultur, cos that's what the Warboss is" rather than trying to fit it all round multiple detachments or whatever (which has the added drawback of capping you at 2–3 Clans max in most games)

The obvious problem if you let people mix Clans in detachments is there's a certain type of player who'll just cherry-pick the best Kultur for any given unit. Way I see it, there are a couple of potential ways round this:

1. Something similar to what happened in the Ere We Go/Freebooterz era, and say you can only take units of a given Clan (other than your Warlord's) if you have a Boyz mob of that Clan in the detachment (maybe even bring back the "you must have a Boyz mob of the Warlord's clan at least twice as big as the largest Boyz mob of any other Clan" rule, which I thought was a wonderful bit of rules-reflecting the fluff) – it's almost like a mini detachment-within-a-detachment restriction.

2. Some sort of drawback to mixing Clans within the same detachment (we already have this in a way, i.e. "nobody gets Kultur bonuses", but that's just kinda dry and just means nobody's ever gonna do it – I'm thinking more something that offsets, rather than completely negates, the benefits) – maybe something a bit like Orc/Goblin animosity from old editions of WFB.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 xttz wrote:

Totally agree. Having a similar combined-arms approach was something GW made a good attempt to cater for in the Dark Eldar codex, and I don't understand why Orks weren't done in a similar way.

Yeah when I saw the new DE rules I got really excited we might get something similar. Buhhhh.

 xttz wrote:

It also results in iconic units like Ghazghkull becoming too locked into a particular sub-faction when it's entirely in keeping with the fluff for him to lead multiple clans.

I thought Ghazzy wasn't Clan-locked? Or did that change in the new Codex?

Not intended to be a snarky post, but single Clan is somewhat closer to the Rogue Trader incarnation.

Back then, your choice of Clan really affected your possible army builds, and the upgrade options for your Boyz.

 Nazrak wrote:

 xttz wrote:

It also results in iconic units like Ghazghkull becoming too locked into a particular sub-faction when it's entirely in keeping with the fluff for him to lead multiple clans.

I thought Ghazzy wasn't Clan-locked? Or did that change in the new Codex?

Technically he can go into any detachment, but most interactions like re-rolls, stratagems, or ability to board a transport are clan-locked. In older editions he would just be able to interact with the whole army.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not intended to be a snarky post, but single Clan is somewhat closer to the Rogue Trader incarnation.

Back then, your choice of Clan really affected your possible army builds, and the upgrade options for your Boyz.

It did to some extent, but you could pull in bits from other Clans, so long as you included a Boyz mob of that Clan. Except for Blood Axe warbosses, cos no-one likes them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 xttz wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 xttz wrote:

It also results in iconic units like Ghazghkull becoming too locked into a particular sub-faction when it's entirely in keeping with the fluff for him to lead multiple clans.

I thought Ghazzy wasn't Clan-locked? Or did that change in the new Codex?

Technically he can go into any detachment, but most interactions like re-rolls, stratagems, or ability to board a transport are clan-locked. In older editions he would just be able to interact with the whole army.

I dunno, that doesn't really bother me too much; he's a Goff after all. Even if you could mix Clans in detachments, I'd say it still makes sense to have abilities, auras etc. stay Clan-locked.

Kinda moot for me though as I don't feth with special characters anyway. Why would I want to use Andy Chambers' warboss from 1E when I could invent my own instead?

 Nazrak wrote:
1. Something similar to what happened in the Ere We Go/Freebooterz era, and say you can only take units of a given Clan (other than your Warlord's) if you have a Boyz mob of that Clan in the detachment (maybe even bring back the "you must have a Boyz mob of the Warlord's clan at least twice as big as the largest Boyz mob of any other Clan" rule, which I thought was a wonderful bit of rules-reflecting the fluff) – it's almost like a mini detachment-within-a-detachment restriction.

Eh, that would kind of force people into boyz now that we finally have been freed from the boyz before toyz mantra and you can just bring all the toyz you want.

An idea in the same spirit would be that every clan needs to have a boss for the gits, because obviously a goff wouldn't trust a deff skull to tell them what to do. Mobs that already have boss nobz would be "self-containing", but if you want to run deff skulls lootas with your bad moons forces, you would have to bring a deff skulls big mek or nobz to boss them around.

2. Some sort of drawback to mixing Clans within the same detachment (we already have this in a way, i.e. "nobody gets Kultur bonuses", but that's just kinda dry and just means nobody's ever gonna do it – I'm thinking more something that offsets, rather than completely negates, the benefits) – maybe something a bit like Orc/Goblin animosity from old editions of WFB.

As we see from the new specialist mobs, mixing clans already has some drawbacks in regards to transports and auras.

Of course, the whole things begs the question how much effect it actually would have on real games played. You are adding a complex layer of restrictions for something that might not see much use anyways. Adding Thrakka's "Great Waaagh!" as a culture to display mixed culture armies might archive the same effect of displaying this particular part of the lore as trying to find a formula to actually mix the clans on a unit level.

 xttz wrote:

It also results in iconic units like Ghazghkull becoming too locked into a particular sub-faction when it's entirely in keeping with the fluff for him to lead multiple clans.

I thought Ghazzy wasn't Clan-locked? Or did that change in the new Codex?

Thrakka, Makari, Badruk, Grotznik and Zodgrod can all join an army of any clan without drawbacks. Since Thrakka is a supreme commander he can even do better and be proppa goff no matter what he is leading. The only thing clan locked about him is his "Goffs is da Best" aura, which... well, makes sense

Generally the downfall of orks is the constant 'myeeeeeeeeh why does this silly ork thing have the good rules like my serious military machine it should have to have either worse rules or silly rules!!!' which leads to stuff like deff dreads being identical or incredibly close pointswise to imperial dreadnoughts, having zero guns or BS5+ guns, and having maybe ONE more attack in melee IF you give it all four melee arms and zero guns.

....but damn do I love that gorkamorka aesthetic so, so much.

GW kinda got what they needed to do with Orks and shooting in 9th, but they boggled it a little bit. Infantry ended up not improved enough, vehicles (well, buggies and flyers, wagons are generally between mediocre and poor and bikes and koptas are just about right) got too much of a bump.

Which makes sense, at least, if I were a game designer if I was going to guess where I'd slip up, it'd be in being too cautious in buffing something that was at one point a competitive piece (SAG meks, lootas etc) and being too gung-ho about buffing something that was the worst piece in the codex (Squigbuggies).

Mixing clans:
This is suitable for an Epic army where you have a very large force. However in 40K it just looks odd with different paint jobs applied to the models as if the painter couldn't decide with which clan to go. Army cohesion just stops working here.
Eldar have the same problems with their colourful Aspect shrines.


Weapons:
I was fine with Orks using Imperial weapons (bolter weapons, autocannons, missile launchers, plasma weapons, etc.) in 2nd in combination with their kustom guns and weird Ork technology such as a SAG.
Why? Because you could instantly point out specific, unique orkish wargear which needed to be different in order to convey the style of playing greenskins.
What did we get since 3rd? Crappy weapon names which seem to be invented by IP lawyers (hello AoS) in addition to subpar weapon stats.


Ballistic skill:
GW has admitted subconsciously that the reduction of orkish BS was a mistake by introducing various SR to boost shooting. The much more simpler approach would have been to raise BS.


Green Tyranids:
Imo it was also wrong to boost melee capability to the level they have now. Tyranids should be the clear number one cc faction with Chaos Daemons in second place.

Wasn't the lowering of ork BS caused by the fact that in ancient times, when orks had a +4 to hit option, they just spamed shoting units, playing both cheap melee hordes and strong shoting options at the same time, and the design team didn't like that, so they lowered the ability of orks to hit, so people have to do melee. Which they kind of a failed at, as it seems like shoting orks are still better then melee orks.

I do miss much of the old 2nd edition Orks stuff. I had expected Orks would move up to BS4+ . At first I was surprised they didn't but given the -1 to hit cap I guess it doesn't matter as much. I do wish some units had a better to hit roll. I also wish you could mix clans and clan rules in a list with no real penalty as I feel that should be playable and that playing a sold clan detachment should then just be stronger, like playing a chapter pure SM army.
At this time I would have just liked more from the 2ndedition codex revamped and brought forward to 9th. I have been asking for a Pulsa Rokkit for weary now but I would also have wished for some more indirect fire weapons.
Looking at Orks now I am not sure I even understand how GW thinks Orks should play on the table top. Where as Orks in/from 2nd seemed far more straight forward to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Wasn't the lowering of ork BS caused by the fact that in ancient times, when orks had a +4 to hit option, they just spamed shoting units, playing both cheap melee hordes and strong shoting options at the same time, and the design team didn't like that, so they lowered the ability of orks to hit, so people have to do melee. Which they kind of a failed at, as it seems like shooting orks are still better then melee orks.

I don't know if that's true but it definite became how orks played for a few editions strong melee units and low cost heavy hitting shooting units were my preferred build from 3rd on. Or maybe after 3rd. But if they were trying to change that dynamic all they seem to have done was make it stronger, if we exclude the part where Orks were the ones doing the shooting.
However, you have to remember that back in 2nd there were layers upon layers of -1 to hit that stacked. -1 for cover -1 if the target unit moved beyond X inches -1 for targeting a unit that emerged from cover and a few more I can't recall. So 7's,8's and 9's to hit was a thing. If I recall correctly.

After watching a couple of batreps, I think some units could use BS4+. I like how they gave it to the Meks, but I get the impression that -1 to hit is becoming more and more common, and it'd make sense to give BS4+ to a limited number of things that really should have it thematically, such as Stompas and Lootas

 Strg Alt wrote:
Mixing clans:
This is suitable for an Epic army where you have a very large force. However in 40K it just looks odd with different paint jobs applied to the models as if the painter couldn't decide with which clan to go. Army cohesion just stops working here.
Eldar have the same problems with their colourful Aspect shrines.

Not sure "my personal aesthetic preferences mean this thing shouldn't exist, in-game" is that strong an argument, chief. It's like going "I don't think Space Marines look good in red" and using that to argue Blood Angels should be deleted from the rules and background material.

 Nazrak wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Mixing clans:
This is suitable for an Epic army where you have a very large force. However in 40K it just looks odd with different paint jobs applied to the models as if the painter couldn't decide with which clan to go. Army cohesion just stops working here.
Eldar have the same problems with their colourful Aspect shrines.

Not sure "my personal aesthetic preferences mean this thing shouldn't exist, in-game" is that strong an argument, chief. It's like going "I don't think Space Marines look good in red" and using that to argue Blood Angels should be deleted from the rules and background material.

If any 40k faction shouldn't have a uniform army cohesion then it's probably Orks.

 warhead01 wrote:
I do miss much of the old 2nd edition Orks stuff.

Spoiler:

I had expected Orks would move up to BS4+ . At first I was surprised they didn't but given the -1 to hit cap I guess it doesn't matter as much. I do wish some units had a better to hit roll. I also wish you could mix clans and clan rules in a list with no real penalty as I feel that should be playable and that playing a sold clan detachment should then just be stronger, like playing a chapter pure SM army.
At this time I would have just liked more from the 2ndedition codex revamped and brought forward to 9th.

I have been asking for a Pulsa Rokkit for weary now but I would also have wished for some more indirect fire weapons.
Looking at Orks now I am not sure I even understand how GW thinks Orks should play on the table top. Where as Orks in/from 2nd seemed far more straight forward to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Wasn't the lowering of ork BS caused by the fact that in ancient times, when orks had a +4 to hit option, they just spamed shoting units, playing both cheap melee hordes and strong shoting options at the same time, and the design team didn't like that, so they lowered the ability of orks to hit, so people have to do melee. Which they kind of a failed at, as it seems like shooting orks are still better then melee orks.

I don't know if that's true but it definite became how orks played for a few editions strong melee units and low cost heavy hitting shooting units were my preferred build from 3rd on. Or maybe after 3rd. But if they were trying to change that dynamic all they seem to have done was make it stronger, if we exclude the part where Orks were the ones doing the shooting.
However, you have to remember that back in 2nd there were layers upon layers of -1 to hit that stacked. -1 for cover -1 if the target unit moved beyond X inches -1 for targeting a unit that emerged from cover and a few more I can't recall. So 7's,8's and 9's to hit was a thing. If I recall correctly.

Pula rokkits! Jeebus, I hated those things... well, my space elves hated those things. Now that I have one of my own though... and indirect fire BLAST weapons, exactly, perfectly orky. And about the faction, again, yes - orks are green nids or something?

Re Karol and to hits, yup. That is how I remember things too, and more of that would have been good for me. I was soooo much looking forward to 8th when I saw Shadow War Armageddon, and was soooo disappointed with 8th when I saw, well, 8th. What a trashfire... 9th, meh. Not bothered to get past the first year with some pilot games at the (then) local GW store. Bought a bunch of shiny grey plastic, but not enthused by the game at all. Orks I built up my collection from some horded old stuff starting maybe 7 years ago, so a rather recent addition to the collection (for me), and I am not so happy with the green gorilla aesthetic. I mean, mad boyz? Meks? How does all of this hold together? What a mess...

Karol wrote:

If orks started hiting on +4, +1 with freebooters, kept t5 and the cost they have now, there would be some mighty evil things going on in the enviroment right now. They are already good, as long as you run a lot of vehicles, and were good even before the new codex droped.

Esthetic wise, I don't really care. They have close to zero impact on rules and if they do, then it is generally a nerf thing.

I don't think the average, run of the mill Ork Boy or even Ork unit needs to hit on 4s. But orkz currently have entire units devoted to shooting which suck. Shoota Boyz as an example. 30 Shoota boyz at 18' range have 60 shots, 20 hits, against a Marine statline that is 10 wounds and 3.3dmg So, 270pts of orkz shooting managed to kill 1 and a half Space Marines. Thats 270pts killing about 27, or if they are primaris, 30. But! what about on a "Speed Waaaagh" turn and within Dakka Range?

Well, first off, Speed Waaagh actually doesn't benefit shooting infantry unless they are in an over priced trukk and than you are limited to 12 models in that unit. But that aside, Shoota boyz can get in Dakkarange...good luck though. 9 inches, that is the Dakka range for a shoota. Assuming 24' no mans land, you would need to move, advance turn 1 AND move turn 2 AND have to have gotten a 5 or a 6 on your 1st turn advance to get foot sloggin Shoota boyz into Dakka range. To put that another way, they don't benefit from Dakka range. But lets assume you managed to get them all within 9 using magic. Instead of 20 hits, it becomes...ready for this? 30. Yup, that's it...30 hits. Which become 15 wounds and against a Marine player that is 5dmg or 2 and 1/2 dead Marines, which is AT MOST 50pts of Primaris.

So, going back to the main point, there is no reason to give choppa boyz a 4+ BS, but why not give Shoota boyz a flat BS4 and bump their guns to Ranged 24 instead of 18? Same thing with Lootas, they would clearly benefit from BS4, as would other shooty ork options which are very clearly outclassed by a number of other units.

Keeping in mind that right now Ork Boyz aren't really competitive options, would BS4 and 24' range really break the game or would that just make it so Boyz don't suck hard all the time?

 the_scotsman wrote:
Generally the downfall of orks is the constant 'myeeeeeeeeh why does this silly ork thing have the good rules like my serious military machine it should have to have either worse rules or silly rules!!!' which leads to stuff like deff dreads being identical or incredibly close pointswise to imperial dreadnoughts, having zero guns or BS5+ guns, and having maybe ONE more attack in melee IF you give it all four melee arms and zero guns.

....but damn do I love that gorkamorka aesthetic so, so much.

GW kinda got what they needed to do with Orks and shooting in 9th, but they boggled it a little bit. Infantry ended up not improved enough, vehicles (well, buggies and flyers, wagons are generally between mediocre and poor and bikes and koptas are just about right) got too much of a bump.

Which makes sense, at least, if I were a game designer if I was going to guess where I'd slip up, it'd be in being too cautious in buffing something that was at one point a competitive piece (SAG meks, lootas etc) and being too gung-ho about buffing something that was the worst piece in the codex (Squigbuggies).

Pretty much agree Scotsman. The Stompa has been a hot piece of garbage for a decade or more now, GW literally just cut its price by 25% and its still a piece of garbage. Keep in mind btw, that when 8th dropped they increased the Stompa's price by 200pts and then realized "whoops its even worse than before" before they DOUBLED its firepower and still it was crap. So put that in perspective. That means that since 7th, GW has realized the Stompa was hot garbage. Made it cheaper than it was pre-8th AND doubled its firepower and STILL nobody wants the damn thing in their list. What does that say about their ability to balance a Stompa vs say...Knights? And that is without even getting into the difference in value between a Gork/morkanaut and a Knight.

I think a lot of our current codex was balanced ok. Some is over tweaked like buggies, and some of it is just...wtf were they thinking, AKA Boyz.

SemperMortis wrote:


So, going back to the main point, there is no reason to give choppa boyz a 4+ BS, but why not give Shoota boyz a flat BS4 and bump their guns to Ranged 24 instead of 18? Same thing with Lootas, they would clearly benefit from BS4, as would other shooty ork options which are very clearly outclassed by a number of other units.

Keeping in mind that right now Ork Boyz aren't really competitive options, would BS4 and 24' range really break the game or would that just make it so Boyz don't suck hard all the time?

I have thought the same too. Only other idea was to just include the shoota, choppa and slugga as base equipment for an Ork boy, they cost enough.
I had expected the shootas AP to pip up after seeing the stats change for choppas, more dice is just not enough for the poor oll' shoota.
I look back to 7th and was fielding mobs of 20 to 30 shootas and easily dishing out the hurt on SM units. the army structure was big mobs of shootas and smaller mobs of choppas to bat clean up and it worked well enough for my games.


Another change I'd like to see is grots. give me grots with autto guns and flack armour. If the boys aren't going to do it let the grots. Grots should be a little more meaningful and I'd accept two classes of grots. Slaves and soldiers just to cover the grot shield strat.

I shouldn't complain too much about the new codex because I have yet to want to play a game of 9th with a list from the new codex. I am however, looking forward to facing off the boys on the table. What ever that looks like.