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.
And how common are AP1-3 (for any weapon) Compared to Ap 4-6? And even at AP- orks die 3 times faster the SMs.
Have you heard of Plasma Guns and Battle Cannons before?
Yeah technically they're not as common as AP 4-6, but really they're more common since everyone takes them if they can.
So to answer my question, AP4-6 is significantly more common right?
So by that logic we can see that a model with a 6+ save isn't going to survive very long compared to a model with a 3+ save. And we can further use that same reasoning to see that a Rapid Fire Bolter in the hands of a SM will do significantly more damage then an Assault 2 shoota which has a 6in shorter range, because the Bolter's bearer has a far better chance of surviving long enough to use it.
So when doing those calculations I Factored in Durability. If you want a compromise I would gladly take 1 more shot on a shoota instead of 2 if I got a 4+ save
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
SemperMortis wrote: So to answer my question, AP4-6 is significantly more common right?
Not in my experience, no. Basilisks and Leman Russ Battle Tanks are iconic core units of the Imperial Guard arsenal and I have never seen an army that did not have one of them.
Furthermore, even against weapons that are AP4-6, Orks can still claim cover which considerably devalues PA.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/21 01:02:30
So to answer my question, AP4-6 is significantly more common right?
Well, no. There are more AP 4-6 weapons available in the game, but you'll find way more AP 3-1 weapons in armies than 4-6 in almost any meta thanks to the popularity of MEQ's.
So when doing those calculations I Factored in Durability. If you want a compromise I would gladly take 1 more shot on a shoota instead of 2 if I got a 4+ save
So all Boyz should be 'Ard Boyz essentially?
Nah, I don't dig that one bit.
You also need to factor in Shootas and Big Shootas being Assault Weapons. I'd take a Shoota over a Bolter any day for that reason alone. Also factor in the fact that Marines pay more to be more survivable - Orks getting a 4+ save and still staying at 7 points doesn't sound reasonable at all to me.
So to answer my question, AP4-6 is significantly more common right?
Well, no. There are more AP 4-6 weapons available in the game, but you'll find way more AP 3-1 weapons in armies than 4-6 in almost any meta thanks to the popularity of MEQ's.
So when doing those calculations I Factored in Durability. If you want a compromise I would gladly take 1 more shot on a shoota instead of 2 if I got a 4+ save
So all Boyz should be 'Ard Boyz essentially?
Nah, I don't dig that one bit.
You also need to factor in Shootas and Big Shootas being Assault Weapons. I'd take a Shoota over a Bolter any day for that reason alone. Also factor in the fact that Marines pay more to be more survivable - Orks getting a 4+ save and still staying at 7 points doesn't sound reasonable at all to me.
Ok lets take your assumption and check it.
Eldar, most common weapon to feth up opponents? Scatter Laser.
DE- Poisoned weapons with garbage AP Orks- Shootas or at most AP4 (lootas)
SMs- Bolters, heavy bolters, Assault cannons, Whirlwinds, Thunderfire Cannons, Sniper rifles, Basically everything except Melta, Plasma and Grav. Lascannons aren't really taken that often in the current meta.
Nids - ...lol IG? I will give you IG, they have lots of AP3 weapons. good for them.
Chaos? pretty much the same as SM but -1 though I do see more AP4 weapons on them (Auto-cannon devestators)
SOB? Flamers, lots and lots of AP4 and AP5 Flamers, beyond that bolters.
So Beyond IG, AP1-3 aren't the most common weapon, at least in my experience. So lets go further and take a look at the top 5 lists from the recent LVO?
#1 had 2 Vaul batteries (Strength D so AP2) and 1 Skathach WK with more Strength D and Starcannon, so all told 5 weapons with AP1-3, granted those won't be shooting at Infantry that often.
#2 had some Talos MC's who get Smash which is AP2, but Zero ranged weapons.
#3 I will give you this one, he had a lot of Melta guns. Granted he had the Gladius BS formation which gave him LOTS of free Razorbacks so this is kind of misleading because he is getting about 400pts MORE then anyone else.
#4 ZERO ranged AP1-3 except Psychic shenanigans which are unreliable at best.
#5 Is Necrons....I won't lie I don't know much about necrons, I haven't played much against them but I believe the Gauss Cannon is AP3 right? So he had a bunch of short ranged AP3 weapons.
So no, Overall Ap4-6 was significantly more common, hell even in the gladius strike force there was more AP4-6 then there was Melta/Plasma/Lascannon/grav.
I ran a list today, at 1,000 points. It was an Execution Force with Skitarii allies (technically the Skitarii were the main force, but the EF was a bigger section of the points).
Callidus? AP 2.
Vindicare? AP 2.
Eversor? AP 3.
Culexus? AP 1/Ignores Armour Saves.
Skitarii with Plasma Culivers? AP 2.
That leaves only my Arc Rifles and Radium Carbines (in other words, 340/1000 points) at AP 5. (AP 5 too, so 'Eavy Armour would make a big difference here.)
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Eldar, most common weapon to feth up opponents? Scatter Laser.
DE- Poisoned weapons with garbage AP Orks- Shootas or at most AP4 (lootas)
SMs- Bolters, heavy bolters, Assault cannons, Whirlwinds, Thunderfire Cannons, Sniper rifles, Basically everything except Melta, Plasma and Grav. Lascannons aren't really taken that often in the current meta.
Nids - ...lol IG? I will give you IG, they have lots of AP3 weapons. good for them.
Chaos? pretty much the same as SM but -1 though I do see more AP4 weapons on them (Auto-cannon devestators)
SOB? Flamers, lots and lots of AP4 and AP5 Flamers, beyond that bolters.
So Beyond IG, AP1-3 aren't the most common weapon, at least in my experience. So lets go further and take a look at the top 5 lists from the recent LVO?
#1 had 2 Vaul batteries (Strength D so AP2) and 1 Skathach WK with more Strength D and Starcannon, so all told 5 weapons with AP1-3, granted those won't be shooting at Infantry that often.
#2 had some Talos MC's who get Smash which is AP2, but Zero ranged weapons.
#3 I will give you this one, he had a lot of Melta guns. Granted he had the Gladius BS formation which gave him LOTS of free Razorbacks so this is kind of misleading because he is getting about 400pts MORE then anyone else.
#4 ZERO ranged AP1-3 except Psychic shenanigans which are unreliable at best.
#5 Is Necrons....I won't lie I don't know much about necrons, I haven't played much against them but I believe the Gauss Cannon is AP3 right? So he had a bunch of short ranged AP3 weapons.
So no, Overall Ap4-6 was significantly more common, hell even in the gladius strike force there was more AP4-6 then there was Melta/Plasma/Lascannon/grav.
Perhaps I failed to phrase my point properly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Tau Crisis Teams, Space Marine Devastators and IG Special Weapon Teams are the only 3 Infantry units in the game that can take 50% or more Plasma/Melta Weapons per unit.
AP 3-1 is never prevalent, but almost everyone has it, bar Orks and DE, and almost everyone uses it thanks to the massive amounts of MEQ armies - it's a common weapon choice when available, but that doesn't literally mean they're more common than Bolters and Shootas or whatever.
To add to what you listed, CSM have the Helldrake, and Tyranids can use the Heavy Venom Cannon, although I haven't seen the latter one in action for quite some time.
Honestly I'm now confused what your point is regarding AP - we're saying that there isn't enough AP 3-1 in a typical army to give MEQs a complete shakedown? Since Marines will die just as easily as Boyz if you hit them with a Plasma weapon, you will actually deal way more damage to a Marine army with a single Plasma Gun than you will to an Ork army. This is the first and last time I'll ever use a degree of mathematics in 40k, but 2 successful Plasma gun shots against an SM Tactical Squad will cost the Marine player 28 points, whereas 2 successful shots against an Ork Boyz squad will cost the Ork player just 14 - exactly half as much.
MEQ's lose all their extra spending in durability when AP3 or lower weaponry is pointed their way, and since there are less of them, the points toll racks up a lot faster. There would actually be the potential for Orks to be a decent faction to fight with in a heavy AP2 meta if their Codex didn't let them down in the other departments, since they don't scoop out for armour outside of Meganobz.
This leads back to the point that giving Orks a 4+ save without paying for it is unreasonable. And to top it off, AP 4 is more common than AP 3 or 2, so I doubt this will make Orks that much more survivable even when you factor in that they can reflect Bolter shots now.
That's my thoughts on the topic anyway. As for making Orks more powerful at range, their advantage has always been that almost everything they have is an Assault Weapon. They shoot poorly, and usually up close, but outside of Lootas, Flash Gitz etc. that firepower was always meant to be an added bonus to jumping into melee and beating the crap out of your opponent. I think an excerpt from the 4th edition Ork Boyz entry would be a good mantra for the purpose of a Shoota - the wielder will always have more luck using his Shoota to bash the daylights out of his opponent than actually hitting anyone with it at range.
I'm not convinced shoota boys getting more shots would be a bad thing for game balance. My most regular opponent playing either TAU or SM's brings as few actual troop models, fire warriors or Tac marines, as he can. His Space Marines having none at all as his bikers are a troop choice.
Where s my own army is built around troop choices.
Mentioned above "Orks are an assault army", I don't think that's really the case anymore. While Orks have a lot of attacks it seems a strange statement for a 7th edition army. In my own experience Orks haven't been any good at assault since their 3rd edition codex.
Why should we be an assault army in an edition that focuses on shooting. If shooting is "better" than assault and if Ork shooting is better than Ork Assault why are we not playing more to our strengths over all. It's a change I have made in my own lists focusing on shoota boys and grot mobs over slugga boys.Hell, I don't even spend points on a warboss right now. There more benefit for me in a KFF Mek and more things that shoot.
All of this discussion is pushing me more in a direction I was already thinking. I like the WAAAGH plane effect but for shootas and a few other weapons more and more as an idea. If you can't call Da WAAAGH you don't get it.
And some warbosses will make better use of it than others. Although par of me thinks it should be related to a Big mek over a warboss but I really think it should just be an alternate effect from calling Da WAAAGH. Making the Warboss just a little better for the army it leads. ( More useful?)
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
warhead01 wrote: I'm not convinced shoota boys getting more shots would be a bad thing for game balance. My most regular opponent playing either TAU or SM's brings as few actual troop models, fire warriors or Tac marines, as he can. His Space Marines having none at all as his bikers are a troop choice.
Where s my own army is built around troop choices.
What's the point you're making here? Even if the point you're making is "we Ork players need to rely on Troop choices a lot more than armies like Tau and SM" I thought 7th allows for unbound army lists.
Mentioned above "Orks are an assault army", I don't think that's really the case anymore. While Orks have a lot of attacks it seems a strange statement for a 7th edition army. In my own experience Orks haven't been any good at assault since their 3rd edition codex.
Why should we be an assault army in an edition that focuses on shooting. If shooting is "better" than assault and if Ork shooting is better than Ork Assault why are we not playing more to our strengths over all. It's a change I have made in my own lists focusing on shoota boys and grot mobs over slugga boys.Hell, I don't even spend points on a warboss right now. There more benefit for me in a KFF Mek and more things that shoot.
I don't remember saying Orks are an Assault army, although they totally are. They are and should be an assault army because that is how they've been designed and engineered from the get go both in lore and in rule prints. The fact that 7th edition focusing on shooting makes them a sub par faction is both not their responsibility or a reason to say that Orks should be given more effective ranged weapons at no extra charge; it's a fault of the general ruleset, not the faction, that makes Orks as a concept bad in the current meta of the game.
All of this discussion is pushing me more in a direction I was already thinking. I like the WAAAGH plane effect but for shootas and a few other weapons more and more as an idea. If you can't call Da WAAAGH you don't get it.
And some warbosses will make better use of it than others. Although par of me thinks it should be related to a Big mek over a warboss but I really think it should just be an alternate effect from calling Da WAAAGH. Making the Warboss just a little better for the army it leads. ( More useful?)
I think Orks have way too many rules that hinder them, personally. While I enjoy the character in Mob Rule, 4th edition Mob Rule and Bosspoles really should have been the line in the sand before we got any of this random chance to kill your own models nonsense.
As for calling a Waaagh!, it suffers from the same problem as above for hindering an Ork player more than helping them out. Again, something that should be ideally changed. Overall though, giving Orks more firepower for no cost is not something I'd be willing to agree on, especially when the community gives armies like Tau flak for not fairly paying for some of the equipment they have. Reeks of hypocrisy to me.
Hey, new to Dakka, off an on player since 4th (currently off), mostly 'nids and space marines but always loved the Orks. Would like to pick them up but hard to do so given how bad the codex is. Maybe kill team with a gaming buddy or two.
Anyway, random question. Shouldn't Orks have a natural 5+ save? I mean we always hear about how insanely tough the buggers are but fleshbag guardsmen have a better chance of shrugging off a choppa blow than orks do. A 5+ save wouldn't help much with shooting but would give them a little more survivability in CC. Just curious about everyone's opinion.
I would be open to Orks having some kind of scrap armour between the basic Ork armour they wear and 'Eavy Armour. However, I don't think it should be basic - pricing it at 1 point per model sounds as fair as it can get.
oldzoggy wrote: The previous ork codex didn't lack dakka at all in the context of the other codexes in that time.
It is the new codex that is bad it was actually a nerf from the old one, and the other codexes that made it worse by nearly killing off the game with their power creep.
As a reference. Orks do not only lack dakka, they also suck in close combat. Just look at Wulfen (~ Nob point cost), or Genestealers (~ork boy point cost). : \
Eh? Genestealers cost 13 points. If you mean Cult Acolytes, that's 8 points.
What's the point you're making here? Even if the point you're making is "we Ork players need to rely on Troop choices a lot more than armies like Tau and SM" I thought 7th allows for unbound army lists.
Basically. I'm not sure what an unbound Ork army would look like. I'm just interested in improving Orks boys mobs. I can't see playing Orks with out them.
I don't remember saying Orks are an Assault army, although they totally are.
No, it was on the first page.
I was just thinking over all about how nice it would be for my troop choices to have just a little more impact during a game.
As for calling a Waaagh!, it suffers from the same problem as above for hindering an Ork player more than helping them out. Again, something that should be ideally changed. Overall though, giving Orks more firepower for no cost is not something I'd be willing to agree on, especially when the community gives armies like Tau flak for not fairly paying for some of the equipment they have. Reeks of hypocrisy to me.
I was looking at it from the other direction I think. I don't expect a nerfing to happen to the other factions. For as much as I don't like to play against TAU I think they are what they are suppose to be. I remember
when they were brand new thinking they were a shooting army that didn't hit very much. I guess I get little disgruntled at seeing all the free stuff other armies get.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
If only Orkz got what everyone was asking for: 6+ FNP. Not that it would have fixed everything.
At least a lot of Non-Troop units and options got a lot cheaper, A LOT cheaper. Which stinks to have to buy even more models thus emphasizing how armies like Orkz are seriously an investment, but now one can afford 15 Str 8 Ap3 BS 3 shots worth of kannons for dirt cheap points and then throw in a ton of super discounted fast units like bikers/koptas/buggies that also have 10-pt rokkitz given a 100% discount on top of that.
velocitydog wrote: I mean we always hear about how insanely tough the buggers are but fleshbag guardsmen have a better chance of shrugging off a choppa blow than orks do.
Orks are T4. They have the same chance (which is 2/3).
EDIT: DERP, sorry. Orks have a 5/9 chance, so they are more resistant than guard.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/21 19:34:04
warhead01 wrote: Basically. I'm not sure what an unbound Ork army would look like. I'm just interested in improving Orks boys mobs. I can't see playing Orks with out them.
I too think Boyz are the staple to practically any Ork army, and for the record I heavily dislike the idea of Unbound. However, I think the problem with Orks on an individual unit level lies more with the general ruleset punishing them rather than the Codex overcosting them.
No, it was on the first page. I was just thinking over all about how nice it would be for my troop choices to have just a little more impact during a game.
Boyz have always struggled on foot for the most part. 4th ed Mob Rule helped remedy bracing against enemy fire a lot, but now it's gone you struggle more than ever to get Boyz into combat. Also Furious Charge has ruined Boyz as a unit - they need the old version of that rule back I think. But apart from that, I think they're fine as they are - it's the core ruleset that needs changing more.
I was looking at it from the other direction I think. I don't expect a nerfing to happen to the other factions. For as much as I don't like to play against TAU I think they are what they are suppose to be. I remember when they were brand new thinking they were a shooting army that didn't hit very much. I guess I get little disgruntled at seeing all the free stuff other armies get.
I don't blame anyone for being pissed that one army doesn't have to pay fairly for equipment while you have to pay more for less. However, suggesting that you should also get equipment unfairly doesn't remedy the problem in the long run. If the base ruleset was ironed out properly, I think a lot of problems associated with Orks as an army would fade.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/21 22:42:36
I too think Boyz are the staple to practically any Ork army, and for the record I heavily dislike the idea of Unbound. However, I think the problem with Orks on an individual unit level lies more with the general ruleset punishing them rather than the Codex overcosting them.
You could be right about a rules reset but I think some constants will remain.
The rules issues I have are mostly leadership test and moral related. I don't like that a unit falling back can attempt to rally with in 6" of an enemy unit. ( mostly a SM issue for me) I focus during my turn on inflicting 25% casualties on enemy squads when I can't wipe them out.
More often than not something falls back. When my Orks are fearless they are ridiculously good, mostly because they don't kill each other.
I don't really have a problem with the idea of unbound. I just think some...guidance should have been given for it.
My own ideas about unbound being, I've made my army and want to move up in points and want just extra slots for fast attack. for example. But I don't care to give up my command abilities.
I don't blame anyone for being pissed that one army doesn't have to pay fairly for equipment while you have to pay more for less. However, suggesting that you should also get equipment unfairly doesn't remedy the problem in the long run. If the base ruleset was ironed out properly, I think a lot of problems associated with Orks as an army would fade.
I'm not pissed exactly. I'm not sure how Ironing out the rules would work regarding free stuff. It's a codex problem, but that might be what you're saying. I'm not asking for free stuff but wouldn't turn my nose up at it either. I don't see having Da WAAAGH do more than one thing as free when it's Warlord dependent. I don't see it as any different than a warlord or commander turning bikers to troops. It's just a thing they do or provide. Not unlike a warlord trait.
Not trying to carry on too much. Even if we don't all agree I enjoy these topics.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
Da Kommizzar wrote: If only Orkz got what everyone was asking for: 6+ FNP. Not that it would have fixed everything.
At least a lot of Non-Troop units and options got a lot cheaper, A LOT cheaper. Which stinks to have to buy even more models thus emphasizing how armies like Orkz are seriously an investment, but now one can afford 15 Str 8 Ap3 BS 3 shots worth of kannons for dirt cheap points and then throw in a ton of super discounted fast units like bikers/koptas/buggies that also have 10-pt rokkitz given a 100% discount on top of that.
15 Str 8 AP 3 BS3 shots worth of Kannons is 3 full units of Mek Gunz so 270pts for those gunz. And if were going to talk about model cost that is around $700 worth of models. (Over 700 with tax)
And all you have to do to get rid of those mek gunz is hit them. As soon as you kill 25% they run away. Grot leadership is 5.
Regardless, I think its hilarious that GA is comparing Tau getting cheap abilities/weapons to a shoota getting an extra shot
warhead01 wrote:You could be right about a rules reset but I think some constants will remain.
The rules issues I have are mostly leadership test and moral related. I don't like that a unit falling back can attempt to rally with in 6" of an enemy unit. ( mostly a SM issue for me) I focus during my turn on inflicting 25% casualties on enemy squads when I can't wipe them out.
More often than not something falls back. When my Orks are fearless they are ridiculously good, mostly because they don't kill each other.
I don't really have a problem with the idea of unbound. I just think some...guidance should have been given for it.
My own ideas about unbound being, I've made my army and want to move up in points and want just extra slots for fast attack. for example. But I don't care to give up my command abilities.
Orks really should have their old Mob Rule back - that at least made them more durable if they are deployed on foot, and it certainly makes a difference in an Assault. The new rule is too punishing to be of any use, as well as adding yet another random layer to 40k that is totally unecessary.
And as for Unbound, that's what army organisation was all about. The moment you start giving people more liberties, the system becomes open to abuse (not that it matters since it's too easy to abuse the system within Combined Arms anyway). Such unrestricted lists should be reserved for something like an Apocalypse game; restricting Unbound would basically just give you the same problems Combined Arms has already.
I'm not pissed exactly. I'm not sure how Ironing out the rules would work regarding free stuff. It's a codex problem, but that might be what you're saying. I'm not asking for free stuff but wouldn't turn my nose up at it either. I don't see having Da WAAAGH do more than one thing as free when it's Warlord dependent. I don't see it as any different than a warlord or commander turning bikers to troops. It's just a thing they do or provide. Not unlike a warlord trait.
Not trying to carry on too much. Even if we don't all agree I enjoy these topics.
The point is that everyone should pay as fairly as possible for what they get; it doesn't matter that that's not the case, but that is how it should be. I think we can all agree on the simple fact that 40k is not a fair game system by any stretch of the imagination. That's why these proposed rules threads exist in the first place.
Orks should have corrections made to their faction wide rules, that's for sure. But changing faction rules and getting weapon buffs at no charge are two very different ideas and concepts.
SemperMortis wrote:Regardless, I think its hilarious that G.A is comparing Tau getting cheap abilities/weapons to a shoota getting an extra shot
If you can't see how suggesting a free upgrade is not hypocritical, after everyone else gives factions like the Tau an absolute bollocking for not paying fairly for various items (most of which I am inclined to agree with) then I don't think your suggestions can be taken seriously.
If you can't see how suggesting a free upgrade is not hypocritical, after everyone else gives factions like the Tau an absolute bollocking for not paying fairly for various items (most of which I am inclined to agree with) then I don't think your suggestions can be taken seriously.
G.A
Tau are Top tier, Orks are bottom tier.
Tau already had absolute LOADS of good options for dirt cheap, Orks lack Dakka.
Giving Tau Intercept for 5 pts is in no way comparable to giving a BS2 model an extra S4AP6 shot at 18in range.
If you think those are comparable then you don't know Orks
Tau already had absolute LOADS of good options for dirt cheap, Orks lack Dakka.
The point here is what, exactly?
Orks hardly lack firepower either; they lack ranged effectiveness, which has always been a trait of the Orks. To change that you'd have to either increase their BS or increase the already high volume of shots they can produce.
Giving Tau Intercept for 5 pts is in no way comparable to giving a BS2 model an extra S4AP6 shot at 18in range.
Apart from the fact that you're fighting fire with fire by saying "well if they get to play unfairly I should be able to too", which will ultimately do nothing to solve the flaws with 40k as a game as each army is updated to constantly try to outdo the others.
If you think those are comparable then you don't know Orks
How about we make the Tau pay more for their upgrades?
Or, in an ideal universe, we could alter the core ruleset to stop all the ridiculous rules punishing assault tactics. Actually, both of those combined would be good. Again, just trying to outdo a top tier army that should never have been a top tier army in the first place will only worsen the problem over time.
Also I don't get this "well if you disagree then you can't be a proper Ork player". Nearly 7 years a collector, painter and gamer for Orks (not that that should matter in the slightest). And while I freely admit that I've barely touched 7th edition, I feel like pretty much everyone who has at least read into current Ork rules and knows 40k fairly well can comment; the problem with your proposal is that you wish to bring down a faction that is considered undercosted so you can then alter rules in another faction to make them undercosted. It doesn't add up from the standpoint of trying to improve the state of 40k so that it's more enjoyable.
And if you come back and say that Boyz are overcosted, then surely the suggestion should now be "remove the 1 point upgrade cost to Shootas", no?
Orks dakka isn't the promblem with the codex, CC is (and yes, I feel Orks are and should be an assault army). Though, I wouldn't complain with shoota getting double shots during the Waaagh (though they'll have to remove the Waaagh every turn garbage) or having pinning.
While Orks are an assault unit (In the sense that their units lean towards being better at assault than shooting), this does not mean that the shooting UNITS in the army should be bad. Shoota Boyz, Lootas, and Flash Gitz should still be worth taking, and weapons like big shootas be worth their points. Even in lore we have examples of orks being capable in the shooting department (the War of Dakka).
Saying that the Ork codex would be fixed by making CC better ignores that orks still have an uphill battle against other low tier armies. I don't mind if orks have to make up for a lack of range or penetration, but orks are in a bad place and need something other than a quick fix.
Orks hardly lack firepower either; they lack ranged effectiveness, which has always been a trait of the Orks. To change that you'd have to either increase their BS or increase the already high volume of shots they can produce.
Orks do in fact lack ranged firepower and firepower in general. Our shoota boyz are supposed to take care of short range (They don't) Our Mek Gunz are supposed to take care of the mid range (They don't) and our Lootas are the only good long range firepower we have and they are substandard at best. What unit do we have that has a high volume of shots at long range that are worth shooting? Lootas...thats it. Our Kill Kannon is a joke, our Lobba is meh at best. No, we lack good firepower and the biggest problem is our handful of good long range guns have TONS of downsides. Zzap Gunz, Smasha Gunz hell even the Bubble Chukka.
When was the last time an enemy with even a decent T value and armor save was afraid of shootas or big shootas or even Supa Shootas?
How about we make the Tau pay more for their upgrades?
Or, in an ideal universe, we could alter the core ruleset to stop all the ridiculous rules punishing assault tactics. Actually, both of those combined would be good. Again, just trying to outdo a top tier army that should never have been a top tier army in the first place will only worsen the problem over time.
I think its ridiculous that your comparing how OP and undercosted the Tau are to giving Shoota style weapons 1 extra shot or possibly 2. Is S4-5 really that scary on a T4 model with a 6+ save and BS2?
Also I don't get this "well if you disagree then you can't be a proper Ork player". Nearly 7 years a collector, painter and gamer for Orks (not that that should matter in the slightest). And while I freely admit that I've barely touched 7th edition, I feel like pretty much everyone who has at least read into current Ork rules and knows 40k fairly well can comment; the problem with your proposal is that you wish to bring down a faction that is considered undercosted so you can then alter rules in another faction to make them undercosted. It doesn't add up from the standpoint of trying to improve the state of 40k so that it's more enjoyable.
anyone who has played orks knows that in the current edition everything about our codex is underpowered. This was just a topic to get the feelings of the community about increasing the shot output of Shoota weapons or possibly some other orky weapons like Rokkitz and lootas. You seem hell bent on this not ever coming to pass and the argument was that you don't want them as good as Tau or your SM Tacticals.
General Annoyance wrote: And if you come back and say that Boyz are overcosted, then surely the suggestion should now be "remove the 1 point upgrade cost to Shootas", no?
Well making Shoota boyz 1pt cheaper won't help in any way. Shoota boyz if used (I never use them because they suck) are fielded in smaller units, so 30-45 total models. Reducing the price of ALL Of that investment by 30-45pts doesn't in any way help the underlying problem of damage output or damage mitigation. At most that is another 5-7 boyz you can buy with the savings, nothing worth noting in other words.
If Shootas were assault 3 and Big Shootas at least Assault 4 possibly 5 you might see those weapons and models used as an alternative to Slugga Boyz and Rokkitz.
though I do see more AP4 weapons on them (Auto-cannon devestators)
Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts.