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.

 Blackie wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The worst part about this - other than all the folks acting like this isn't a problem or is some grand outlier and not actually a pitch-perfect representation of the absurd lethality of 9th - is that I know exactly how GW is going to 'fix' this:

They'll add the phrase "in any turn after the first" to the rules for calling a Waaagh!/Speedwaaagh/Great Waaagh!, and they'll call that a job done.

Then do it also to SM doctrines .

They more or less did. Instead of 'fixing' doctrines they forced you to move on to the next one so armies could no longer realistically build around Dev doctrine.

GW decided to make terrain rules vitally important to 9th's design and balance and then in the Ork and Admech books decided to make a load ofcheap, spammable, ultra-lethal units that completely ignore them.

It is what is known as a "whoopsie."

 Ordana wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The worst part about this - other than all the folks acting like this isn't a problem or is some grand outlier and not actually a pitch-perfect representation of the absurd lethality of 9th - is that I know exactly how GW is going to 'fix' this:

They'll add the phrase "in any turn after the first" to the rules for calling a Waaagh!/Speedwaaagh/Great Waaagh!, and they'll call that a job done.

Then do it also to SM doctrines .

They more or less did. Instead of 'fixing' doctrines they forced you to move on to the next one so armies could no longer realistically build around Dev doctrine.

Not the same thing. SM doctrines work the entire game, it just switches targets. Speedwaaagh bonus only lasts two turns and second turn already has just half bonus. Preventing from using it in turn one is too punishing. SM doctrines also work no matter what HQ the SM player chooses to bring, Speedwaaagh only works with a specific (mediocre) codex HQ and a specific FW one.

I think the issue is Sean is a nice guy and a well respected player who got absolutely man handled in this game by taking a win at all cost tactic that backfired because he felt he had no
Other Choice. He claims even if he fell back and counter charged later he would have still been tabled (maybe turn 3) and he’s probably right.

But that’s not necessarily the ork codex fault… Sean took an army with low antitank but extreme assault and fragile. It was hard countered by a shooty vehicle spam list that Sean had no answer for… is this the ork codex fault? Or Sean list building fault? Does drukari not have anti tank in thier codex? They do btw…

So we are back to the jist of the complaints people don’t like rock, paper, scissors play that even one of the best players can’t overcome because they lose during list building when they make a skew army to combat 2 wound elite squads instead of anti tank. They don’t like the fact even when someone places themselves in the absolute worst position possible they can lose 75% of thier army from making a bad decision that backfired. And I’m not saying Sean had a lot of choice here. I’m saying he could not have made a worst list and placed it in a worst position if he tried vs this ork build.

The bottom line is this.. orks have a balanced 50% win rate, orks have a high to mid high range in placing in major tournaments.. orks are still less then 10% of all placings. And most importantly outside of drukari orks are not wiping out most armies off the table… the vast majority of other competitive codexs ad mech, greyknights, space marines, adeptus soritas, deathguard, t-sons, etc are all tough fights for orks. Heck admech hard counters buggy spam, in fact this list lost vs admech this same tournament.

However currently drukari make up ~25% of all tournament placings.. currently drukari have a ~60%+ win rate… and when an ork list gets to the top tables as it did in this 1 tournament where the player faced 3x drukari armies in a row the ork codex and it’s 1 competitive build seems a lot more powerful Becuase they hard counter drukari… that is the issue…and people lost thier freakin minds afterwards.

And I’m not saying squigbuggies and dakkajets can’t go up 10-15pts. But that’s not going to solve any of the above issues. Personally I’d like to see aircraft base rules change so they don’t screen out assault to you it’s immediately behind them… but that’s unlikely to happen.

Don't even bother gungo, you'll be dismissed as not knowing anything or being a GW simp

 gorgon wrote:
So lethality in 40K has gotten ridiculous, and it's questionable how suited the game is for competitive play.

GW games have never been suited for fair and balanced competitive play. It's great for fun cinematic games with your wardollies and friends on an afternoon . But it's not designed to be balanced. Its designed to sell the new products. That's why it's the market leader in sales.

It's a square peg rammed into a round hole. Always has been, always will be.

Actually we would probably just copy and paste one of sctosman’s many posts in this thread alone that state that any matchup with 90% efficiency in one turn even under the most optimized of conditions, and mentions of a lack of granularity between shooting someone at full range with one tiny piece of the model in the squad showing vs shooting a squad at point blank out in the open.

Probably share a link to the dozens of threads discussing dozens of other issues in 40k that have come up whose discussions keep going back to the game is too lethal.

That one explanation does an amazing job of explaining a lot of 40k’s problems and resolving that is a relatively simple solution vs the million other problems we try to abstract this issue to be.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Don't even bother gungo, you'll be dismissed as not knowing anything or being a GW simp

The reason that opinion would be dismissed is because it fails to address the core problem that it's even possible to remove 90% of an army in one turn.

Do you think a well balanced game should allow that sort of lethality?

The 'competitive play' 'counter' posts are utterly asinine.

This (the lethality) is _just_ as much a problem in 'casual play.'

It was also largely NOT a problem in older editions. There were glaring exceptions (particularly for certain factions/models), but everyone was able to recognize them.

It is absolutely a design problem that 90% lethality is even achievable, no matter how you play. No matter how many supposed 'TFGs' you exile from your local store meta, its still a massive problem for the game.

Again, I direct you towards Infinity. Infinity is a game where you can be tabled in a single turn - even theoretically your own turn - if you don't play it according to the way its intended to be played.

90% of an army being destroyed on a turn is an entirely meaningless metric absent any sort of qualitative contextualization. It tells you an incomplete story without reference to any of the factors that made it possible. Any game designed to be played around the use of heavy terrain in order to mitigate lethality will require the game to be highly lethal in order for it to function properly - otherwise what you have is a game where you roll lots and lots of dice but accomplish nothing, as the level of lethality is inadequate in relation to the defensive mechanisms implemented in order to counterbalance it.

40k 9th ed. is that type of game that requires heavy use of terrain as a means of counterbalancing lethality (though it doesn't go nearly as far as other such games in that respect). If you don't utilize the mechanical systems built into the game to mitigate lethality the way they are intended to be used (like, say, placing your entire army in the open within firing range of your opponent), then you're going to have a bad time and lose 90% of your army in a single go. If you do use the mechanical systems the way they are intended, then that 90% becomes something more like 30-40% - which is still probably too high, but not dramatically so.

So yes, I do think a well balanced game could allow that sort of lethality. We already have extant examples of games that do, like Infinity and various historicals where breaking cover without suppressing the opposite side or obscuring your movement using smoke, etc is an instantaneous death sentence.

Slipspace wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Don't even bother gungo, you'll be dismissed as not knowing anything or being a GW simp

The reason that opinion would be dismissed is because it fails to address the core problem that it's even possible to remove 90% of an army in one turn.

Do you think a well balanced game should allow that sort of lethality?

Do you honestly think Sean list was well balanced when he himself said he had nothing in his list to handle vehicle spam like the buggy list?
Here is the thing speedwaagh lists do not regularly remove 90% of an opponents army.. in fact it has a hard time with ad mech, certain space marines (iron hands, grey knights, deathwatch all do well vs them), and deathguard (which is another counter to speedwaagh no one talks about)… (or you know any list that remotely tries to bring a decent amount of anti tank)…

What you fail to address is the core problem is that ork speedwaagh only hard counters drukari assault infantry spam which just happens to be a major meta army list. Do you think a well balanced game should be built to appease a single skew list?

The funny thing about this mass freak out of players is that a week ago nearly everyone had the ork codex listed as a high mid tier codex that was ranked behind admech drukari greyknights somewhere between sisters, deathguard, t-sons, aldaeri, iron hands… and all of a sudden the mass freak out about them winning 1 tournament has begun with multiple threads of nerfing orks…massive change in both people’s assessment of the codex and reaction to the dex because of 1 tournament where a guy spammed planes to block assault.

The problem with all this is ... is it even considered fun? Because a game is supposed to be about having fun right?

Is it fun to arrive, spend the time setting up the terrain, placing the models. And then removing 80% of your army in one turn, after which you might as well concede.

Even for the person playing the list. Is it fun? Your shooting is so devastating it has the ability to remove 80% of your opponent's army in one turn. What kind of genius tactical gameplay was required? Shooting priority? Does secondaries, objectives, VP even matter anymore at that point?

Even if we removed the list building factor and made it a mirror match. Would it be a fun one? Because its about who gets that first turn and wipes out so much of the other side that it just snow balls from there. So the whole game is literally decided on who goes first.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
The problem with all this is ... is it even considered fun? Because a game is supposed to be about having fun right?

Is it fun to arrive, spend the time setting up the terrain, placing the models. And then removing 80% of your army in one turn, after which you might as well concede.

Even for the person playing the list. Is it fun? Your shooting is so devastating it has the ability to remove 80% of your opponent's army in one turn. What kind of genius tactical gameplay was required? Shooting priority? Does secondaries, objectives, VP even matter anymore at that point?

Even if we removed the list building factor and made it a mirror match. Would it be a fun one? Because its about who gets that first turn and wipes out so much of the other side that it just snow balls from there. So the whole game is literally decided on who goes first.

First off mirror matches with speedwaagh happens all the time and it’s NEVER a turn 1 wipe out… you are theorizing about stuff that doesn’t exist. Furthermore This list has a 50% win rate regardless of who goes first or second. In fact the game everyone is crying about the speedwaagh went second and took almost no casualties since the drukari couldn’t make it into combat.
you act as if speedwaagh just annihilates everyone turn 1. They don’t.. this kind of brutal first turn only happens if the opposing playing allows it. If you took a tau gunline and purposefully ran it into assault turn 1 without any protection and lost 75% of your army whose fault is it? Now if you take an assault list without any protection and park it in full rapid fire range of a gun line and lose 75% of an army whose fault is it? You are saying it shouldn’t have happened I agree… and once Sean failed his advance rolls and failed to get his army locked in combat he knew he lost… had he made that roll he probably wouldnt have… had the aircraft not blocked the buggies from assault he should not have lost either, but that was a weakness of his list… (and bad flyer base rules)
But go for it raise squigbuggies and dakkajets up ~15 points. It will not change anything that happens during this game. Sean would have still lost the way that game was played.

Voss wrote:

It was also largely NOT a problem in older editions.

Depend on how old, it was a problem in 5th to 7th.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
The problem with all this is ... is it even considered fun? Because a game is supposed to be about having fun right?

Is it fun to arrive, spend the time setting up the terrain, placing the models. And then removing 80% of your army in one turn, after which you might as well concede.

Even for the person playing the list. Is it fun? Your shooting is so devastating it has the ability to remove 80% of your opponent's army in one turn. What kind of genius tactical gameplay was required? Shooting priority? Does secondaries, objectives, VP even matter anymore at that point?

Even if we removed the list building factor and made it a mirror match. Would it be a fun one? Because its about who gets that first turn and wipes out so much of the other side that it just snow balls from there. So the whole game is literally decided on who goes first.

I'd say this is the most important question. I wouldn't find it fun to be on either side of it. Heck, taking an army out of your transport case can be a big enough pain as it is, how anticlimactic is it to spend 30 minutes setting up terrain and pulling out an army for the game to be over so soon. While others may decide to debate whether the odds of losing 80% of your models is even possible outside niche scenarios I think the overall point is valid. When the game is hyper lethal it really adds a lot "this sucks factor" when your setup time is almost equal to the play time.

Both can be true...lethality can be over the top in 40K and this particular case can be an extreme example.

Too much survivability can create problems too, but at least you can play out the game to round 5. I faced an army of 30 deathwing terminators before. It feels really futile to shoot and kill 2 and a half deathwing terminators sitting on cover in the center and then on their turn, they just heal one back to full and rez another one.

But it turned out to be a 5 round game where we both got 90+ points and the game was decided on round 5. Because I took one look at his army, and I took engage, ROD, priority target.

He wasn't interested to even venture into my side of the board plus I moved blocked him by feeding him one unit each turn.

I mean, it still feels futile seemingly shooting at something that just won't die. But at least its a game.

Having a big chunk of your army just removed in one turn so that you are playing 50 to 80% down just feels bad. Now the general lethality is already high in the game right now. Its probably too late to dial back the lethality. And trying to boost the resilience results in the other extreme end where a normal army struggle to even dent an unkillable bloc.

However, terrain was supposed to be the big mitigating factor. Like it doesn't matter how lethal your units are if I can at least hide them behind obscuring to protect them. But you can't hide from flyers and you can't hide from guns that shoot out of line of sight. So, when you make flyers as well as guns that shoot out of line of sight so deadly... you will have games like this one.

I mean, the guard codex is not even out, but if they made the Guard artillery and manticores as lethal as ork ones ... it will be the same thing. Park 3 vendettas in front so you can't charge me turn 1, and then my turn, just shoot you with flyers and artillery that don't care about the terrain at all.

also, having terrain mitigate lethality work if the terrain actually does that, but the only kind of terrain that can actually help is Obscuring, and Obscuring doesn't actually prevent you from being killed; it simply postpones it.

Sean himself pointed this out: if he simply hid, he'd be dead later, but still dead.

The only thing it does is reverse the lethality equation, e.g. a player can hide and then pop out and table the ENEMY on their own turn! Huzzah! But that's ... not really a reduction in lethality. It's a binary "can interact with" or "cannot interact with"

Those terminators that can't be killed are more interactive than a unit behind Obscuring, unless flyers or NLOS are present (in which case obscuring does literally nothing).

Voss wrote:
The 'competitive play' 'counter' posts are utterly asinine.

This (the lethality) is _just_ as much a problem in 'casual play.'

It was also largely NOT a problem in older editions. There were glaring exceptions (particularly for certain factions/models), but everyone was able to recognize them.

It is absolutely a design problem that 90% lethality is even achievable, no matter how you play. No matter how many supposed 'TFGs' you exile from your local store meta, its still a massive problem for the game.

I disagree. Even in 3rd a SM/AM list that was tailored against orks could table the greenskins within a couple of turns.

Problem with this specific game with drukhari vs orks is that both lists were extremely skewed. Orks tailored against drukhari and drukhari took a full melee army. If both, or even one of those list, were more TAC oriented (like the vast majority of lists in casual gaming) that drukhari debacle would have never happened.

An average optimized list could have easily defeated the ork one. The specific ork list could have struggled a lot against other factions, instead it got to face drukhari three times in a row. The drukhari player decided to gamble in listbuilding and got a bad match up, the ork one went full anti drukhari and had the luck to fish 3 drukhari armies in a row. They both gambled and only one of them was rewarded. It happens with that rock/paper/scissor mentality in mind, it happened very frequently even in older editions.

Games like this one are not even remotely near the standard lethality of 40k, which might be too high in 9th (I think it is) but removing 1800 points, or even "just" 800+, in one turn is something exceptional, that may only happen if players make hard mistakes during deployment or by getting bad matchups, for one side, between extreme lists.

I have to question if some of these posts even play 40k, not even at a high competitive level. Just in general.

That Ork list and some of those Admech lists are not going to be countered by TAC ones. Anyone trying to defend them is unironically just being a simp for their specific army. You're no better than Drukhari players saying "the meta just needs to adjust!" or "take autocannons!"

These are lists with cheap, spammable, highly lethal units that ignore practically all of the terrain rules built into the game and on top of that are absurdly resilient for their cost. They are inherently problematic and more importantly totally uninteractive and unfun to play against. Bringing up Ork winrates is deflection from the real issue. Of course Orks as a whole aren't a problem because not everybody has the willingness or money to take that many buggies. No-one is advocating to nerf Boyz or Killa Kanz. It's this type of list archetype that is the problem.

And that's the big thing that everyone here seems to be missing: this is not some unique occurrence. This type of thing has happened multiple times since the Ork dex dropped and it's happened multiple times with Admech too. The first time with Orks was Mani's 18 buggies list which got first turn against a completely obscured Drukhari army and removed 1500 points in the first turn. There was no risky play or lack of anti-tank or whatever else these absurd posts are trying to argue. A few weeks ago at the LGT you had a first turn roll-off deciding the entire finals because the shooting on both sides was so overwhelming, but especially on the Admech side because it could just ignore what little terrain there was. I know Custodes players who have lost 1k points in the first turn to these types of lists. Try playing your TAC Marine or Necron lists into buggy spam or 6 Admech flyers and see how well you do; we're all excited to see you show us how it's done. Even fething Death Guard with a flat -1 D damage gets absolutely rinsed by these buggy lists.

And yet WR for those super OP buggy spam based lists, not orks in general, is not far from 50%.... How many GTs did they win so far? As you said they're not even likely to show up in casual games, so it looks like some posters are definitely overreacting. With a balanced drukhari list that 1800 points of stuff removed in one turn wouldn't have happened. If those kind of orks lists were so OP we would see them dominating the tables, which doesn't happen.

Note that I don't have any sympathy for spammy lists, and I despise lists that take 4 flyers and/or 10+ buggies, but numbers don't support your theory. My fix for example doesn't involve points hikes, rather limiting the amount of those models people can take: by allowing flyer every 1000 points and by removing squadrons from the buggies datasheets (why models with a base that is almost knight size or regular tanks are allowed to be in squadrons anyway?). In fact even with point hikes a list like that would have had -1 flyer and -1 buggy at most (-210 points in total in case of massive points hikes for those units). And since drukhari also deserves points hike nothing would have changed.

At the same time Freebooters trait and Speedwaaagh bonus are far from being OP, the former must be triggered and shines when the whole army shares the same klan, which makes it one sided, with no threatening melee, while the latter required a meh HQ to be triggered and only lasts a couple of turns. Those interactions shouldn't be touched. SM doctrines are far more OP.

Units like boyz and killa kanz need massive buffs my friend, while it seems like you're suggesting they're fine and the best ork units should be put on par with those trash units.

I mean this list wasn’t spam or squadroned he took 3 single unit detachments of 2 buggies and 2 of a buggy that was essentially nerfed this codex from last and 1 of another buggy that’s rarely taken since it’s a weak anti-infantry buggy (which just happens to do well vs drukari). 9 buggies and 4 unique models.

Also the nonsense of this happens regularly is pretty much bull crap… up until a week ago everyone was listing orks as a high second tier tier codex. Even goonhammer whose calling for a nerf as well had orks listed below admech, drukari, greyknights, sisters and then orks. A week before this tournament…. And now all of a sudden you are trying to claim orks have been doing this regularly? You guys are so freakin full of it… https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-9th-silver-surge/ the only difference is ork only placed as a 5th and 2x 8th places in the 3 major last week so you guys were fine with it then.

The irony is even this past week just like goonhammer said, ad mech, drukari, grey knights and sisters all had better win records in the majors..(death guard and t-sons are also a problem for these buggy spam lists but you wouldn’t know that listening to the peanut gallery) orks won 1, grabbed a 3rd place and 2x 10th places in 5 majors, 4 placings out of 47 listed players and ork buggy spam is now a problem? Just man up to what it is you all freaked out due to 1 lopsided tournament win because 2 players played Rock Paper Scissors and one lost.

Yeah, people who can't read tournament data typically overreact. As always numbers are not information, it's the (correct) analysis of data that provides the information.

They read the whole story as: Freebooters with lots of buggies and planes can easily remove 1800 points of one of the most powerful factions in the game.

On the contrary I'd like orks to received buffs rather than nerfs so they can finally bring non spammy lists like pretty much any other major faction in the game which can field an average collection of models and turn into a fairly optimized list with just some minor tweaks, or even no tweaks at all.

It'd be nice if the Ork players in this thread didn't leap to the defense of their faction out of some kind of knee-jerk response to a misunderstanding.

"40k is too lethal" has nothing to do with winrates or faction balance. A faction can both be too lethal and be 100% balanced.

Arguing that Orks don't need a nerf should be reserved for the threads where people are saying Orks need a nerf.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It'd be nice if the Ork players in this thread didn't leap to the defense of their faction out of some kind of knee-jerk response to a misunderstanding.

"40k is too lethal" has nothing to do with winrates or faction balance. A faction can both be too lethal and be 100% balanced.

Arguing that Orks don't need a nerf should be reserved for the threads where people are saying Orks need a nerf.

If the entire premise to your “40K is too lethal” didn’t revolve around a single ork win at a single tournament and then go into multiple rounds on how orks need a nerf and are first turn wiping out most armies (which isn’t even remotely true) ork players wouldn’t need to keep throwing stats and tournament results up over and over showing that’s just not true.

Played vs a version of this list yesterday, only 1313pts, with my DA (regular opponent). He still had 6 buggies, dakkajet, beast snagga boss on squigosaurs. ghaz and mek in Battlewagon and 10 Gretchin.
Luckily, I won 1st turn and got an alpha strike off, killing 2 buggies and the boss on squigosaurs (combination of fire from black knights, attack bikes, Sammy and a talon master).
The counter punch was still devastating. 4/5 black knights, 3 Attack Bikes and my LS vengeance destroyed. The sheer number of shots and firepower is insane. I did end up winning the game, but it was close. I was mostly fortunate that ghaz bounced off my DW terminators.
I hate to have seen what would have happened if I went second.
However, I don't want a knee jerk reaction, there just needs to be some points adjustments. That many shots hitting on 4s has to be accounted for. Dakkajet and buggies going up is a must, but not by crazy amounts. 20pts on the jet and 10pts per buggy is probably where I would start.

gungo wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It'd be nice if the Ork players in this thread didn't leap to the defense of their faction out of some kind of knee-jerk response to a misunderstanding.

"40k is too lethal" has nothing to do with winrates or faction balance. A faction can both be too lethal and be 100% balanced.

Arguing that Orks don't need a nerf should be reserved for the threads where people are saying Orks need a nerf.

If the entire premise to your “40K is too lethal” didn’t revolve around a single ork win at a single tournament and then go into multiple rounds on how orks need a nerf and are first turn wiping out most armies (which isn’t even remotely true) ork players wouldn’t need to keep throwing stats and tournament results up over and over showing that’s just not true.

It doesn't rely on that alone though. There are multiple data points from YouTube battle reports, tournament games (including non-finals games from this tournament itself), and casual anecdotes.

In fact, even just among supermajor GT finals (a tiny sample set) this isn't the first time this has happened (as pointed out multiple times in this thread). The London GT final was also a single-shooting-phase win for the victor.

 Blackie wrote:

Voss wrote:
The 'competitive play' 'counter' posts are utterly asinine.

This (the lethality) is _just_ as much a problem in 'casual play.'

It was also largely NOT a problem in older editions. There were glaring exceptions (particularly for certain factions/models), but everyone was able to recognize them.

It is absolutely a design problem that 90% lethality is even achievable, no matter how you play. No matter how many supposed 'TFGs' you exile from your local store meta, its still a massive problem for the game.

I disagree. Even in 3rd a SM/AM list that was tailored against orks could table the greenskins within a couple of turns.

'Within a couple turns' is an entirely different metric. Tabling halfway through a game isn't great, but its a world of difference to multiple instances of single-shooting phase wins. Which is what people are actually talking about, no matter how often people jump in to insist that this particular instance doesn't matter because reasons.

gungo wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It'd be nice if the Ork players in this thread didn't leap to the defense of their faction out of some kind of knee-jerk response to a misunderstanding.

"40k is too lethal" has nothing to do with winrates or faction balance. A faction can both be too lethal and be 100% balanced.

Arguing that Orks don't need a nerf should be reserved for the threads where people are saying Orks need a nerf.

If the entire premise to your “40K is too lethal” didn’t revolve around a single ork win at a single tournament and then go into multiple rounds on how orks need a nerf and are first turn wiping out most armies (which isn’t even remotely true) ork players wouldn’t need to keep throwing stats and tournament results up over and over showing that’s just not true.

There are the other aforementioned cases, the two threads on terrain in these general discussions, and many other discussions that regularly come back to the conclusion that 40k is too lethal, like most discussions making the case for alternating activation. Do you even read this thread and do you even read anything else on dakka? Or are you just here to troll?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like other anecdotes mentioned in this thread...

How many times does it need to be stated that this was not an isolated experience and in fact happens regularly whenever this type of list plays?

Sorry that you don't actually play the game regularly or pay that much attention to the competitive scene but it's a very clear and present problem and has been going on for 3 months now. Longer if you include the specific Admech build too.