If pairings are announced, tables found, asteroids and deployment completed and then the 60 min round starts there is really no excuse not to finish that game. I've played 17 tourney games of this format and finished every one, and seen maybe 15% go to time on other tables.

This depends entirely on the players present and is outside your control. In the two small Store Championships I went to, both used 75 minute rounds and over half the games went to time. My experience may not be typical, but it is not that uncommon for games to go to time even at 75 minutes - especially if someone is using MoV to their advantage and slow playing (which is technically against the rules but impossible to determine and enforce).

I know your principle reason for championing 75 min rounds is on the basis of leveling the natural advantage of fatties and the 'all or nothing' MOV system, but I don't really believe that round length is directly related to that problem. Does the data you've been crunching record the round length of the tourneys to see if there is a higher percentage of 2 ship/fattie builds winning 60 min round events?

I know your principle reason for championing 75 min rounds is on the basis of leveling the natural advantage of fatties and the 'all or nothing' MOV system, but I don't really believe that round length is directly related to that problem. Does the data you've been crunching record the round length of the tourneys to see if there is a higher percentage of 2 ship/fattie builds winning 60 min round events?

I'm not sure this is a Big Data kind of question. If you grant for the moment that you have a very expensive ship and a very cheap ship that are equally cost-effective, then the more expensive ship has a clear advantage from a margin-of-victory standpoint.

That is, if a 60-point Fat Falcon is equivalent in both cost and overall value to 5 Academy Pilots, then the Falcon is better in a tournament because it has one threshold where it adds to your opponent's tiebreaker score, rather than five.

I know your principle reason for championing 75 min rounds is on the basis of leveling the natural advantage of fatties and the 'all or nothing' MOV system, but I don't really believe that round length is directly related to that problem. Does the data you've been crunching record the round length of the tourneys to see if there is a higher percentage of 2 ship/fattie builds winning 60 min round events?

I'm not sure this is a Big Data kind of question. If you grant for the moment that you have a very expensive ship and a very cheap ship that are equally cost-effective, then the more expensive ship has a clear advantage from a margin-of-victory standpoint.

That is, if a 60-point Fat Falcon is equivalent in both cost and overall value to 5 Academy Pilots, then the Falcon is better in a tournament because it has one threshold where it adds to your opponent's tiebreaker score, rather than five.

100% agree. What I'm asking is that does that natural advantage of the fatties increase proportionately as the game length decreases? Do we have any tourney data to show the relationship? Or really, are these two things (being Fatties/MOV in general & round length) completely unrelated.

Does that make more sense. Sorry if not, we're several beers into Friday night at this point!!

If pairings are announced, tables found, asteroids and deployment completed and then the 60 min round starts there is really no excuse not to finish that game. I've played 17 tourney games of this format and finished every one, and seen maybe 15% go to time on other tables.

This depends entirely on the players present and is outside your control. In the two small Store Championships I went to, both used 75 minute rounds and over half the games went to time. My experience may not be typical, but it is not that uncommon for games to go to time even at 75 minutes - especially if someone is using MoV to their advantage and slow playing (which is technically against the rules but impossible to determine and enforce).

You don't have to slow-play to go to time. A lot of builds can just refuse to die.

Should just start them at 9am.

Which would work great but many shops don't open until 10am on a Saturday. In those scenarios you have registration from 10-11.

I'm not disagreeing with you it's just easier said than done.

At 20-40 a head I'm sure they can afford to pay a few TO's one or two hours.

If pairings are announced, tables found, asteroids and deployment completed and then the 60 min round starts there is really no excuse not to finish that game. I've played 17 tourney games of this format and finished every one, and seen maybe 15% go to time on other tables.

This depends entirely on the players present and is outside your control. In the two small Store Championships I went to, both used 75 minute rounds and over half the games went to time. My experience may not be typical, but it is not that uncommon for games to go to time even at 75 minutes - especially if someone is using MoV to their advantage and slow playing (which is technically against the rules but impossible to determine and enforce).

Of course it does, but the main problem at the moment is not knowing what you will get. My area, we are used to 60 min games. We've been brought up on it, so to speak. If there was a set standard at least the complaining would stop. Obviouslyly my vote goes for 60, but I'd like to be clear here. When I talk about 60 min rounds, I'm talking about the timer starting when the first dials are flipped. I'm curious, in your 75 min tournements, at what point does the 75 mins start?

I know your principle reason for championing 75 min rounds is on the basis of leveling the natural advantage of fatties and the 'all or nothing' MOV system, but I don't really believe that round length is directly related to that problem. Does the data you've been crunching record the round length of the tourneys to see if there is a higher percentage of 2 ship/fattie builds winning 60 min round events?

We don't have partial points, so 75 minute rounds is the best we can do, so that is better than 60 minute rounds.

Even in untimed games you get a big MoV gain in a 2 ship build. I am 18-5 with my IG88 Terminators build, and I am averaging 30 points more of MoV per game than what I would get using partial points. My opponents are averaging 10 when they win. This checks with the fundamental math which is not that hard to do.

In timed games it is obviously an even bigger deal because that 1HP ship at time frequently wins it for one player even if he was getting ROFL-stomped. It happens less at 75 minutes but it does happen.

In tournaments, you end up with a couple people making the cut based on MoV tie breakers, for example the best 4-2 player makes the cut in a 6 round 64 player tournament. Or in a 32 player tournament the top two 3-2 players make the cut based on MoV. So even if games were untimed there can still be an advantage.

Edit: the 75 minute clocks started after all the dials were down for the first turn.

If pairings are announced, tables found, asteroids and deployment completed and then the 60 min round starts there is really no excuse not to finish that game. I've played 17 tourney games of this format and finished every one, and seen maybe 15% go to time on other tables.

This depends entirely on the players present and is outside your control. In the two small Store Championships I went to, both used 75 minute rounds and over half the games went to time. My experience may not be typical, but it is not that uncommon for games to go to time even at 75 minutes - especially if someone is using MoV to their advantage and slow playing (which is technically against the rules but impossible to determine and enforce).

Of course it does, but the main problem at the moment is not knowing what you will get. My area, we are used to 60 min games. We've been brought up on it, so to speak. If there was a set standard at least the complaining would stop. Obviouslyly my vote goes for 60, but I'd like to be clear here. When I talk about 60 min rounds, I'm talking about the timer starting when the first dials are flipped. I'm curious, in your 75 min tournements, at what point does the 75 mins start?

I know your principle reason for championing 75 min rounds is on the basis of leveling the natural advantage of fatties and the 'all or nothing' MOV system, but I don't really believe that round length is directly related to that problem. Does the data you've been crunching record the round length of the tourneys to see if there is a higher percentage of 2 ship/fattie builds winning 60 min round events?

I don't really care if the rounds are 60 minutes or 75 minutes, as long as partial points are used, because that fixes the underlying problem.

We don't have partial points, so 75 minute rounds is the best we can do, so that is better than 60 minute rounds.

Even in untimed games you get a big MoV gain in a 2 ship build. I am 18-5 with my IG88 Terminators build, and I am averaging 30 points more of MoV per game than what I would get using partial points. My opponents are averaging 10 when they win. This checks with the fundamental math which is not that hard to do.

In timed games it is obviously an even bigger deal because that 1HP ship at time frequently wins it for one player even if he was getting ROFL-stomped. It happens less at 75 minutes but it does happen.

In tournaments, you end up with a couple people making the cut based on MoV tie breakers, for example the best 4-2 player makes the cut in a 6 round 64 player tournament. Or in a 32 player tournament the top two 3-2 players make the cut based on MoV. So even if games were untimed there can still be an advantage.

Edit: the 75 minute clocks started after all the dials were down for the first turn.

I agree with you and Vorpal on the partial points changes and the inherent advantage the big expensive ships offer. What I'm saying is do we have any data that the round length has any effect on this advantage. Have two ship builds been winning more 60 min tourneys than 75 mins? Or is, as I expect, there no difference in the percentages. MoV as it stands is the problem, and I don't think that 60 min rounds have any effect on that. The only thing 75 min rounds do is mean I've got 2 hours more of standing round like a chump at these big events.

Not sure. There is a lot of data in List Juggler but I haven't run scripts to analyze it all yet.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the following paragraph:

To keep each Regional Championship tournament consistent with all others, please run your tournament with Swiss rounds and a cut in accordance with the chart to the right. All rounds must be at least 75 minutes in length. If you are expecting more than 100 players or are concerned about the length of the tournament, we strongly recommend running the top 8 cut the following day.

FFG has listened to all of ya'll complaining about the 60min time limit, and how it favors large ships that walk away with 1 hull due to time. I've never really found 60min to be a concern (when run correctly - it is a concern when the TO posts the pairings and then immediately starts the timer), but now it's not even an option.

Also, for those that care, the # of rounds and cut is as follows:

<17 4 4

17-32 5 4

33-64 5 8

65+ 6 8

I feel the 75 minute rounds time limit is a good balance between trying to have as many games as possible play to completion and keeping the event running on a decent schedule. It may not be the best balance for dealing with "Fat" ships that end the game with 1 hull remaining, but it is probably the best we can do for now.

Is the difference between 32 and 33 player attendence so different that 1 person allows for more people making the cut? With 32 people and a cut to top 4, you are going to have 2 4-1 players who don't make the cut. At 33 players and a cut to top 8, 1 or 2 lucky 3-2 players will make the cut but at least all the 4-1s do! It may just be me, but I think letting MOV decide the lucky player(s) who make the cut with 2 losses is a bit more reasonable then having it determine which players with 1 loss don't. True - the only way to be guaranteed to make the cut is to go undefeated in Swiss play. But losing only 1 game should mean making it too. I would actually like to see the number of rounds to be played based upon the middle levels of where they currently are now to make it so most/all X-1 loss players do make the cut. Maybe something like:

<17 4 4

17-23 5 4

24-47 5 8

48-95 6 8

96+ 6 16 or 7 8

Yes it makes the day longer by adding 1 more round at some attendance levels. But it also means if you lose just 1 game to the bad side of luck with your dice, the randomness of your bad dice is someone dimminished and you still are guaranteed to make the cut.

Just a thought.

Lee

But surely the more games played during Swiss the better for deciding pairings. Making rounds 75 mins at a 32 player event means 1hour 15 mins more spent on qualifying rounds. That's an extra game if you play 60 min rounds, which in theory gives you a better shot at qualifying (well it means a bad game is less drastic on your overall position)

Dear God, nine-hour tournaments (optimistically!) before the cut to top 8. At least 13 hours by the time the champion is named.

Bring caffeine, everyone.

*With 65 or more people, of which there will be at least a few.

I'm really just thinking out loud, but this is how I'd want to see things done if I were in charge of a 100+ person Regional tourney:

• Preregistration is strongly encouraged, with a soft cap of 128; registration at the door will be $10 more expensive than preregistration online or by phone, and will only be accepted if there's room left and time left and the TO crew feels like it.
• Registration and initial pairing runs from 8:30am to 9:15; the first timer starts at 9:30.
• Every round, the 75-minute timer starts as soon as everyone is paired and at the table.
• Breaks between rounds are ideally 10 minutes, but no more than 15.
• The first two rounds are run before lunch.
• Everyone gets a catered lunch break from 12:30-1:30. (Helps make sure everyone's in the store and ready to start the rest of the tournament promptly.) First round of door prizes is drawn here.
• The next two rounds are run from 1:30 to 4:30.
• Everybody gets a 30-minute break for a bathroom break, snacks ("catered" again, meaning I buy four cases of bottled water plus nuts, fruit, and chips from Costco), and the second round of door prizes.
• The last two rounds are run from 5:00 to 8:00pm.
• The top 8, or top 16 if I could talk FFG into some variation from the plan, are run the following day starting at 9:30am. The same rules apply except for the untimed final round; we'd go two rounds, lunch, then two more rounds.

Everybody gets fed regularly, everybody gets a good night's sleep before and after, and nobody working the tourney has to put in an 18-20 hour day. Sounds pretty much perfect to me...!

The only thing I would add to this, if it were my event, is that I would try very hard to wrangle-up some professional commentators and turn one of the venue tables into a show table. Games on that table would be livestreamed all day with accompanying pay by play & color commentary.

As someone who consistently does the (binary) breakdown of how many wins it'll take to make the cut, adding an extra round doesn't really allow anyone to "come back" as most think to begin with. At most, it makes the MoV tiebreaker much more relevant. As a random example, let's say 38 people show up. FFG says to play 5 rounds with a cut to top 8. Let's also say 6 of those have SC byes.

R1

22 1Wins

16 0Wins

R2

11 2Wins

19 1Wins

8 0Wins

R3

6 3Wins

15 2Wins

13 1Wins

4 0Win

R4

3 4Wins

11 3Wins

13 2Wins

9 1Wins

2 0Wins

R5

2 5Wins

6 4Wins

13 3Wins

11 2Wins

5 1Wins

1 0Wins

So, in this example, at the conclusion of 5 rounds, you already have your top 8 decided. No tie breakers needed or anything (which is actually a rare occurrence, I randomly picked a perfect example). Let's add a 6th round to that.

R6

1 6Wins

4 5Wins

10 4Wins

11 3Wins

8 2Wins

3 1Wins

1 0Wins

Now tiebreakers are required. Now you can go 4-2 and make the cut, so in some aspects of the game, that is better. However, now you're using MoV, which everyone seems to complain about, in order to determine the top 8 players. So I don't see the value add. Since this one came out so perfect, let's take a look at another example.

48 People, 8 with byes.

R1

28 1Wins

20 0Wins

R2

14 2Wins

24 1Wins

10 0Wins

R3

7 3Wins

19 2Wins

17 1Wins

5 0Wins

R4

4 4Wins

12 3Wins

19 2Wins

10 1Wins

3 0Wins

R5

2 5Wins

8 4Wins

16 3Wins

14 2Wins

6 1Wins

2 0Wins

R6

1 6Wins

5 5wins

16 4Wins

15 3Wins

10 2Wins

4 1Wins

1 0Wins

So, at R5, you use MoV to determine 6 of 8 players. More often than not, in real life this is more like saying if you got a modified you got a loss. But at 6 rounds, you're now using MoV to choose 2 of 16 players. Now it's a crap shoot as to who got the best MoV tiebreaker games. I'd much the tourney be setup to eliminate 2 of 8 one loss players than I would have it choose 2 of 16 2 loss players. Though there is something to be said about keeping hope alive.

As someone who consistently does the (binary) breakdown of how many wins it'll take to make the cut, adding an extra round doesn't really allow anyone to "come back" as most think to begin with. At most, it makes the MoV tiebreaker much more relevant. As a random example, let's say 38 people show up. FFG says to play 5 rounds with a cut to top 8. Let's also say 6 of those have SC byes.

And there is still the fundamental issue of the winner being declared "incorrectly" in games going to time because of no partial points. I'm only still beating this drum because it cost me a 2nd store championship (at an admittedly very small event, but still), and have heard similar reports from some very high level players. (Dallas Parker, etc).

Have played in 8 events now, 6 of them used 60 minute rounds. The 2 that used 75 minute rounds were the smallest events I have attended (5 players for one, 6 for the other). In all 8 events time did not start until all players were set up.

Percentage wise, I have seen more games called to time in 75 minute rounds than I have seen in 60 minute rounds. Not sure why that is, perhaps players are able to focus better with a shorter timed round...I don't know.

If the timer begins after all participants have set up, 60 minutes is enough time for a 100 point game of X-Wing. Partial points is of course an issue...just not one that 15 more minutes per game (or 2 hours more to a day) seems to fix. IMHO.

Have played in 8 events now, 6 of them used 60 minute rounds. The 2 that used 75 minute rounds were the smallest events I have attended (5 players for one, 6 for the other). In all 8 events time did not start until all players were set up.

Percentage wise, I have seen more games called to time in 75 minute rounds than I have seen in 60 minute rounds. Not sure why that is, perhaps players are able to focus better with a shorter timed round...I don't know.

If the timer begins after all participants have set up, 60 minutes is enough time for a 100 point game of X-Wing. Partial points is of course an issue...just not one that 15 more minutes per game (or 2 hours more to a day) seems to fix. IMHO.

15 minutes must translate to about 1 extra round of shooting most of the time, correct?

That seems like it could make the difference between 1 HP Han/Chewie vs 0 HP Han/Chewie.

What is the (presumed) trade-off that FFG wants to avoid by disallowing partial points? Could you not solve the problem by just using a judging panel, somewhat akin to a boxing competition's judging panel?

If the timer begins after all participants have set up, 60 minutes is enough time for a 100 point game of X-Wing. Partial points is of course an issue...just not one that 15 more minutes per game (or 2 hours more to a day) seems to fix. IMHO.

15 minutes must translate to about 1 extra round of shooting most of the time, correct?

That seems like it could make the difference between 1 HP Han/Chewie vs 0 HP Han/Chewie.

If 15 minutes added on to the end of the game only adds 1 round, then I think I found the problem with games going to time! In my experience, the longest rounds don't last more than 10 minutes, with most of the end rounds being done within 3-5 minutes.

What is the (presumed) trade-off that FFG wants to avoid by disallowing partial points? Could you not solve the problem by just using a judging panel, somewhat akin to a boxing competition's judging panel?

Probably because they are afraid that doing math is hard, it will take longer to compute, and people will still mess it up. Or else they are convinced that it is not really an issue with 75 minute rounds. That is also a possibility.

Or conversely they don't believe a non destroyed ship should count for victory points, as it's still on the table.

You've made mention of the "incorrect" winner being decided due to lack of partial points. But don't you also see that possibility if partial points are implemented?

For instance you have a game in which player A has focused his efforts and killed some of his enemies ships, Player B just threw his dice at whatever he could dealing more damage but killing nothing. Should there really be a system in which Player B could come out of that game a winner?

That's my fear with partial points.

Or conversely they don't believe a non destroyed ship should count for victory points, as it's still on the table.

You've made mention of the "incorrect" winner being decided due to lack of partial points. But don't you also see that possibility if partial points are implemented?

For instance you have a game in which player A has focused his efforts and killed some of his enemies ships, Player B just threw his dice at whatever he could dealing more damage but killing nothing. Should there really be a system in which Player B could come out of that game a winner?

That's my fear with partial points.

I'm pretty skeptical that any hypothetical Player B as described would be raking-in wins if they aren't taking opposing guns off of the table, regardless of the points system used.

I said nothing about raking in wins. But since the biggest partial win boogie man is the 1 HP Falcon against 2 clean B-wings, I am just throwing out the inverse scenario.

Or conversely they don't believe a non destroyed ship should count for victory points, as it's still on the table.

You've made mention of the "incorrect" winner being decided due to lack of partial points. But don't you also see that possibility if partial points are implemented?

For instance you have a game in which player A has focused his efforts and killed some of his enemies ships, Player B just threw his dice at whatever he could dealing more damage but killing nothing. Should there really be a system in which Player B could come out of that game a winner?

That's my fear with partial points.

I'm pretty skeptical that any hypothetical Player B as described would be raking-in wins if they aren't taking opposing guns off of the table, regardless of the points system used.

That.

I said nothing about raking in wins. But since the biggest partial win boogie man is the 1 HP Falcon against 2 clean B-wings, I am just throwing out the inverse scenario.

Extreme example. Both players bring BBBBZ.

Player A focus fires and kills 2 B-wings, leaving the last 3 of his opponents ships untouched.

Player B does not focus fire, and only kills 1 B-wing, but has the remaining 4 ships down to 1 or 2 HP each.

Player A currently would win under the existing rules 44-22, but if you do partial points then Player B would win by something more like 76-44. If the game were untimed then it is pretty clear that Player B would win.

So, player B has inflicted more damage onto his opponent, either by better flying or just hot dice. Bear in mind he did this while losing ships to his focus-firing opponent. So he must have either really out-flew his opponent, and/or had really hot dice. Either case merits a full victory.

If it is a legitimately close game, then this will be reflected in an MoV of less than 12 points and a partial win will be awarded.

I said nothing about raking in wins. But since the biggest partial win boogie man is the 1 HP Falcon against 2 clean B-wings, I am just throwing out the inverse scenario.

Or conversely they don't believe a non destroyed ship should count for victory points, as it's still on the table.

You've made mention of the "incorrect" winner being decided due to lack of partial points. But don't you also see that possibility if partial points are implemented?

For instance you have a game in which player A has focused his efforts and killed some of his enemies ships, Player B just threw his dice at whatever he could dealing more damage but killing nothing. Should there really be a system in which Player B could come out of that game a winner?

That's my fear with partial points.

I'm pretty skeptical that any hypothetical Player B as described would be raking-in wins if they aren't taking opposing guns off of the table, regardless of the points system used.

That.

I said nothing about raking in wins. But since the biggest partial win boogie man is the 1 HP Falcon against 2 clean B-wings, I am just throwing out the inverse scenario.

Extreme example. Both players bring BBBBZ.

Player A focus fires and kills 2 B-wings, leaving the last 3 of his opponents ships untouched.

Player B does not focus fire, and only kills 1 B-wing, but has the remaining 4 ships down to 1 or 2 HP each.

Player A currently would win under the existing rules 44-22, but if you do partial points then Player B would win by something more like 76-44. If the game were untimed then it is pretty clear that Player B would win.

So, player B has inflicted more damage onto his opponent, either by better flying or just hot dice. Bear in mind he did this while losing ships to his focus-firing opponent. So he must have either really out-flew his opponent, and/or had really hot dice. Either case merits a full victory.

If it is a legitimately close game, then this will be reflected in an MoV of less than 12 points and a partial win will be awarded.

You've given one extreme case but what about one on the opposite end.

Player A kills all but one B-wing while he was 3 of his own remaining, but with only two or so health on each ship. Player B only has one B remaing but he's dealt more damage and has more HP left on the board.

Currently it be a win for Player A 78-34. But with partial kills you'd end up with a Player B partial victory 83-78. But if we apply the "untimed standard" I don't think we'd say Player B will come out ahead in that scenario.

So while I understand the urge to make sure the "correct" Player is winning I just don't see partial kills as doing that, just changing the type of "incorrect" wins we see.

Overall I also think the "untimed standard" is inappropriate. Games are timed afterall, your goal is to outscore your opponent in that time limit. Not unlike a boxing match. They don't score them based on who would win if the fight went on, they score them based on who did more during the rounds. I actually think even finals should be timed as I think it's important to have a consistent event standard then change it once you get to the finish.

Or conversely they don't believe a non destroyed ship should count for victory points, as it's still on the table.

You've made mention of the "incorrect" winner being decided due to lack of partial points. But don't you also see that possibility if partial points are implemented?

For instance you have a game in which player A has focused his efforts and killed some of his enemies ships, Player B just threw his dice at whatever he could dealing more damage but killing nothing. Should there really be a system in which Player B could come out of that game a winner?

That's my fear with partial points.

I'm pretty skeptical that any hypothetical Player B as described would be raking-in wins if they aren't taking opposing guns off of the table, regardless of the points system used.

That.

I said nothing about raking in wins. But since the biggest partial win boogie man is the 1 HP Falcon against 2 clean B-wings, I am just throwing out the inverse scenario.

Extreme example. Both players bring BBBBZ.

Player A focus fires and kills 2 B-wings, leaving the last 3 of his opponents ships untouched.

Player B does not focus fire, and only kills 1 B-wing, but has the remaining 4 ships down to 1 or 2 HP each.

Player A currently would win under the existing rules 44-22, but if you do partial points then Player B would win by something more like 76-44. If the game were untimed then it is pretty clear that Player B would win.

So, player B has inflicted more damage onto his opponent, either by better flying or just hot dice. Bear in mind he did this while losing ships to his focus-firing opponent. So he must have either really out-flew his opponent, and/or had really hot dice. Either case merits a full victory.

If it is a legitimately close game, then this will be reflected in an MoV of less than 12 points and a partial win will be awarded.

You've given one extreme case but what about one on the opposite end.

Player A kills all but one B-wing while he was 3 of his own remaining, but with only two or so health on each ship. Player B only has one B remaing but he's dealt more damage and has more HP left on the board.

Currently it be a win for Player A 78-34. But with partial kills you'd end up with a Player B partial victory 83-78. But if we apply the "untimed standard" I don't think we'd say Player B will come out ahead in that scenario.

So while I understand the urge to make sure the "correct" Player is winning I just don't see partial kills as doing that, just changing the type of "incorrect" wins we see.

Overall I also think the "untimed standard" is inappropriate. Games are timed afterall, your goal is to outscore your opponent in that time limit. Not unlike a boxing match. They don't score them based on who would win if the fight went on, they score them based on who did more during the rounds. I actually think even finals should be timed as I think it's important to have a consistent event standard then change it once you get to the finish.

The game is intended to be untimed. You and MJ have both eluded to problems with multiple methods of determining the winner when a game times out an the lack of elegance in the final result in a lot of cases, some more far reaching than others but no less frustrating, in games that go to time.

I like that the final match is untimed because it is currently the only check and balance, minor though it is, for building a list that tries to take advantage of the time restrictions in some form.