How would your ork escort fleet look like?

[LemanRuss]

My objections have never been based on their absence. As I stated in my previous post., my contention to a light cruiser with lances for orks is based on how readily available lances are for them throughout the rest of their lists.

You say that since one of the three ork lists can have looted lances as an upgrade on the squadron of a warlord, that makes them a common happenstance and a ship class that has lances as a default weapon is perfectly in line with that faction. Orks can't build high energy weapons from scratch. That's why the only lances they can have are looted and that's why a ship class that has them by default makes no sense to me.
By your logic, making a ship class that has extra shields AND that can be taken multiple times in a list is perfectly fine. I use shields here as an example but it could be rerolling torpedo strenght or repair rolls. It could be any of the gubbins in any of the lists. Why not all of the gubbins all at once? Why not give that ship doubled boarding value on top of it all? The option to take all of theae individually is there. The option exists.

[LeperColony]

I never said lances were common.  I said they were an already existing option, in response to your assertion that lances were somehow "un-orky."  You may not like that the option exists, but it does, and it can actually be very widespread.  A 1500 point fleet has three Warlords automatically.  That's three capital ships or three escort squadrons that can take them.

It may be that you simply don't like the idea of additional ship types.  That's a perfectly valid position, but if so, individual objections are pointless.  Or rather, they don't address the actual issue, namely you just don't want to see the innovation.  But to argue against something on the basis of its absence, when it already clearly exists, is just counterproductive.

In answer to your strawman argument, which I can only presume you already know it to be, thus far your objection has been entirely (and, as we've already seen, erroneously) based on the fact that the option didn't exist (when it did).  Never did we discuss balance.  Your ridiculous example would be problematic on balance issues, which we both know.