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.

But your experience doesn't count. It doesn't conform with the view that clocks can't work in 40K. Therefore it's merely anecdotal.

Thats because those people don't want to use clocks and will disregard anything that says otherwise lol.

secretForge wrote:
I have two concerns here.

1. If chess clocks become the norm, I feel we will loose some of the social aspects of the game.

2. Until its a 100% standard that GW suggest and provide in their stores, then the gap is being widened between the 'competitive' game, and what everyone else is playing, and its a big enough divide for those who have the opportunity to have a group of 'competitive' people to practice with, and the rest of the gaming population as is.

Just what social aspects are you worried about losing?

 auticus wrote:

 Elemental wrote:
Do we have any feedback from people who have actually played 40K with clocks, or is this all still raging about hypotheticals?

I've posted a couple times in this thread that my area has used clocks off and on for a solid decade and it worked out fine, even with horde players.

With all due respect though, you should know that one person's experience doesn't exactly mean much. I am skeptical about the clock just because of the potential for abuse and the potential to rush. I just played a game last night against Orks with my Death Guard/Nurgle Daemon list and both of us had quite a few models (I had 2x20 poxwalkers and 1x30 plaguebearer blobs as the main portion, he had masses of boyz as is tradition) and moving them was super annoying; I could only imagine how bad it would be if I was being timed to move everything.

I get the reason behind chess clocks, but I think it will encourage sloppy play for 40k. You already rarely measure each model to check coherency and whatnot (at least, everyone I play with does), as long as it "looks good enough" it tends to be accepted. I am most curious though if this helps fix the "horde meta" and if that is secretly a reason for wanting to push it.

What I also find very peculiar is that you don't see any of these issues with AOS. There have been no accusations of slow play (at least not that I can tell), no talk of using a clock, none of the problems that come up with 40k. Why is this, I wonder?

Reemule wrote:
Just what social aspects are you worried about losing?

The idea of playing a game while hanging out and talking, having a snack, etc. Chess clocks force you to dedicate your attention 100% to the game and playing as efficiently as possible, and any time you aren't on the clock you're carefully watching to make sure that your opponent doesn't put you back on the clock when they shouldn't, and constantly ready to jump in and execute your own actions as fast as possible once they legitimately put you back on the clock. Sure, the social factor isn't as important in a timed tournament, but it sure makes a difference if chess clocks become the norm outside of those tournaments.

 Peregrine wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Just what social aspects are you worried about losing?

The idea of playing a game while hanging out and talking, having a snack, etc. Chess clocks force you to dedicate your attention 100% to the game and playing as efficiently as possible, and any time you aren't on the clock you're carefully watching to make sure that your opponent doesn't put you back on the clock when they shouldn't, and constantly ready to jump in and execute your own actions as fast as possible once they legitimately put you back on the clock. Sure, the social factor isn't as important in a timed tournament, but it sure makes a difference if chess clocks become the norm outside of those tournaments.

And, let's face it: If chess clocks become the "tournament standard" thanks to ITC, you'll see chess clocks everywhere from LVO prep games to "40k game night" at the local game store.

It's only the first turn, or first two turns, that are highly problematic. Solution, if you feel one is necessary, is to put a timer (not a clock per se) on the first two turns, say 25 minutes each. When your timer runs out, your turn is over. The rest of the game plays as normal. A potential consequence (in addition to games getting into turns 3+), could be that Alpha Strikes would be blunted. One of the reasons Alpha Strikes are so powerful is that players get to do 'everything'; move & bring in reserves, psychic phase, shooting phase, and assault. If you only have 25 minutes, you would need to play with amazing efficiency to get the most out of each of your first turn phases.

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 Elemental wrote:
Do we have any feedback from people who have actually played 40K with clocks, or is this all still raging about hypotheticals?

I've posted a couple times in this thread that my area has used clocks off and on for a solid decade and it worked out fine, even with horde players.

With all due respect though, you should know that one person's experience doesn't exactly mean much. I am skeptical about the clock just because of the potential for abuse and the potential to rush. I just played a game last night against Orks with my Death Guard/Nurgle Daemon list and both of us had quite a few models (I had 2x20 poxwalkers and 1x30 plaguebearer blobs as the main portion, he had masses of boyz as is tradition) and moving them was super annoying; I could only imagine how bad it would be if I was being timed to move everything.

I get the reason behind chess clocks, but I think it will encourage sloppy play for 40k. You already rarely measure each model to check coherency and whatnot (at least, everyone I play with does), as long as it "looks good enough" it tends to be accepted. I am most curious though if this helps fix the "horde meta" and if that is secretly a reason for wanting to push it.

What I also find very peculiar is that you don't see any of these issues with AOS. There have been no accusations of slow play (at least not that I can tell), no talk of using a clock, none of the problems that come up with 40k. Why is this, I wonder?

Slow play is indeed a thing in AOS as well depending on the type of scenarios being used. You may not hear a lot about it because AOS tournament play in the states is a rare thing (indeed AOS iin general in the states is a rare thing). If the scenario is about points though slow-play does come creeping in.

And, let's face it: If chess clocks become the "tournament standard" thanks to ITC, you'll see chess clocks everywhere from LVO prep games to "40k game night" at the local game store.

This is very true.

I think you discussed the cut between the two ideas though already.

If you and your mates are just goofing off playing an Apoc game with all Saturday before you… go do that.

I think the real issue for people is that if Tournaments start to require Timeclocks (and they will I think) then how long does it pass till they are expected to be used in every game… as people are generally locked into a cycle of prepping for the next tourney I find.

This is a valid fear, and perhaps the only one I respect in the Chess clock debate. But there are some mitigations.

Play with the clock anyway. Believe it or not there are a big bunch of people that don’t mind having a tight fast paced game to enjoy. Most of us have wife/kids/work the next day. Finishing a game in the allotted time isn’t a bad experience. Kibitz on facebook about the game later.

Another is clocks don’t have to be double sided. If someone is adamant they don’t want to play, I can set it up and use it to track my side and my time elapsed. This allows me to get my practice in, while satisfying both sides.

And the clock doesn’t have to kill your fun. If you’re playing and having a good time, and the clock dings, keep playing if it’s a casual game. Play it out, see what happens. I’ve even done this at tourneys when we had some extra time.

The clock is just a tool like a movement template or a print out of your army list. It’s there to make the game better. It is going to change the meta. That is unavoidable. But it’s going to be a good change, and you don’t have to view it as a bad change.

DCannon4Life wrote:
It's only the first turn, or first two turns, that are highly problematic. Solution, if you feel one is necessary, is to put a timer (not a clock per se) on the first two turns, say 25 minutes each. When your timer runs out, your turn is over. The rest of the game plays as normal. A potential consequence (in addition to games getting into turns 3+), could be that Alpha Strikes would be blunted. One of the reasons Alpha Strikes are so powerful is that players get to do 'everything'; move & bring in reserves, psychic phase, shooting phase, and assault. If you only have 25 minutes, you would need to play with amazing efficiency to get the most out of each of your first turn phases.

Correction: the first turn is the critical one if you're talking about two players making a good-faith effort to finish the game but struggling to get everything done fast enough. It is not the most problematic one if you're talking about deliberately slow playing to stall for time and win the game. You normally don't see slow play happening early in the game for the same reason that you don't see sports teams trying to run out the clock as soon as the game begins: at the start of the game you don't know if, at the end of the game, you're going to be the player with a lead trying to protect it until the clock expires or the player at a disadvantage scrambling to score enough to make a comeback before time runs out. You don't start stalling until you see that you're in a situation where it will benefit you to waste clock time instead of hurting you, so that makes clocking the late turns just as important, if not more so, as the first turn.

Also, setting the clock so short that "you don't have time to finish everything" is a deliberate and frequent occurrence is a really bad idea. It's immensely frustrating to run out of time, creates massive balance issues between armies that take different amounts of time to resolve their alpha strikes, and guarantees that clock arguments will happen every game because even tiny amounts of wasted time can have a huge penalty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
Play with the clock anyway.

So, let me get this straight: your proposed solution to hating the experience of playing with clocks is "deal with it, play with the clock anyway"?

Another is clocks don’t have to be double sided. If someone is adamant they don’t want to play, I can set it up and use it to track my side and my time elapsed. This allows me to get my practice in, while satisfying both sides.

Even if only one clock is running it still damages the social experience. The clocked player is forced to focus 100% on efficient play, so the un-clocked player isn't going to have any social activity from them.

If you’re playing and having a good time, and the clock dings, keep playing if it’s a casual game.

What's the point in using a clock if you're just going to ignore it? If you're willing to ignore the time limit and keep playing then just skip the pointless clock entirely.

Play it out, see what happens. I’ve even done this at tourneys when we had some extra time.

I can't imagine this ever happening. If the clock runs out in my favor the game is over, I'm taking my win. I'm not going to keep playing and risk turning a win into a loss. At most I might accept that we record the outcome as a win for me, and keep playing just for fun. But even then I'd probably rather take the extra time to rest and prepare for the next game.

This thread is full of people explaining stupid situations which in 99% of games wouldn't occur because 99% of the player base are out to roll some dice and have a good time.

Peregrine, I had a response and decided to kill it. I don't think your making sense. You talk about how the social aspect is all fun, but if a clock dings your killing the game to keep your win.

The clock is coming. Its too nice for the tournament scene. It makes things so much better for a T.O. that your going to see them.
All you can control is how you deal with them being here.

Good luck.

SemperMortis wrote:

dkoz wrote:
I think people saying horde armies will be at a disadvantage with chess clocks are wrong. If you know your army and move along at a good pace there is no reason you will run out of time. Also it's the player's decision to play a horde army so splitting time equally isn't unfair to anyone. No player should be entitled to more time than another just because of their army choice.

Take two steps back and think about this logically. Does it take more time to move 20 models or 200 models. If you think its the same then I can't even have a discussion with you on this subject since we can't even agree on basic facts.

Use movement trays for early turn movement. I do.

 AaronWilson wrote:
This thread is full of people explaining stupid situations which in 99% of games wouldn't occur because 99% of the player base are out to roll some dice and have a good time.

If that is the case, then why do we need clocks? To prevent that 1% from winning while punishing the other 99%?

 Tamwulf wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
This thread is full of people explaining stupid situations which in 99% of games wouldn't occur because 99% of the player base are out to roll some dice and have a good time.

If that is the case, then why do we need clocks? To prevent that 1% from winning while punishing the other 99%?

To ensure people that are slow playing on purpose are punished and nothing more. As I said, 99% of people who are going out to a event wouldn't try and "game" the clock like all these ridiculous situations that have been put across.

Great example - someone said about people trying to use LoS issues to burn down a clock. Here's what would happen in nearly every other situation -

Player A - Can I see this model

Player B - Yes / no.

Done.

ITC needs to focus on a better scoring system first. Chess clocks are a reaction to people slow playing to game the current scoring system. If you were truly punished for not finishing a game, then the TFGs of the competitive world are certainly not going to slow play. I hate the idea of chess clocks. I don't look forward to them, but I'm not worried about using them. I do think they will be an unwelcome distraction.

I do like how not a single chess clock supporter had a single reply to Peregrine's LOS clock issue. I guess because there isn't one? The best part is that's one example of many. There are too many interactions that require back and forth and abstract exchanges that can be exploited.

Also, it's like putting a timer on a baseball game. We have a game that is based on rounds and being forced to adhere to a time schedule to try and force those rounds in when sometimes it's just not possible.

 Tamwulf wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
This thread is full of people explaining stupid situations which in 99% of games wouldn't occur because 99% of the player base are out to roll some dice and have a good time.

If that is the case, then why do we need clocks? To prevent that 1% from winning while punishing the other 99%?

I actually think they do a fantastic job of politely demonstrating to players that they're slower than they think they are. I rarely run into a true 'slow player' who's doing it intentionally and more often run into people who just naturally play slower (which in a timed event is frustrating). I do play a large horde army so time management is very important to me and making sure I get my fair share is also very important. Ultimately I've played with Chess Clocks for a few months now (just as a matter of speeding up my own play) and I've not had a negative experience with them. They've moed me from getting 3 turns in 2.5 hours to getting 5 in the same time frame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deviantduck wrote:
ITC needs to focus on a better scoring system first. Chess clocks are a reaction to people slow playing to game the current scoring system. If you were truly punished for not finishing a game, then the TFGs of the competitive world are certainly not going to slow play. I hate the idea of chess clocks. I don't look forward to them, but I'm not worried about using them. I do think they will be an unwelcome distraction.

I do like how not a single chess clock supporter had a single reply to Peregrine's LOS clock issue. I guess because there isn't one? The best part is that's one example of many. There are too many interactions that require back and forth and abstract exchanges that can be exploited.

Also, it's like putting a timer on a baseball game. We have a game that is based on rounds and being forced to adhere to a time schedule to try and force those rounds in when sometimes it's just not possible.

Baseball is moving more and more towards time limits in a variety of ways. Most of that is because of the financial impact of 4+ hour games but they are doing things consistently to speed up the game.

 deviantduck wrote:
I do like how not a single chess clock supporter had a single reply to Peregrine's LOS clock issue. I guess because there isn't one? The best part is that's one example of many. There are too many interactions that require back and forth and abstract exchanges that can be exploited.

Also, it's like putting a timer on a baseball game. We have a game that is based on rounds and being forced to adhere to a time schedule to try and force those rounds in when sometimes it's just not possible.

I'm sorry I don't see Peregrine's issue. I presume it goes something on the lines of one player constantly questioning lines of sight. This issue is easy to solve. Call a judge over, it's blatantly obvious that the other player is stalling and/or obfuscating for no good reason and the judge should warn/DQ them for it. That is not a clock issue, it's a TFG issue (and could be done with or without a clock present).

As to baseball they now have a clock on time between pitches and how long you have for conferences on the mound and MLB has instructed umpires not to grant time out to a batter any time they ask for it.

Things change. Either adapt, adopt or, perish.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

dkoz wrote:
I think people saying horde armies will be at a disadvantage with chess clocks are wrong. If you know your army and move along at a good pace there is no reason you will run out of time. Also it's the player's decision to play a horde army so splitting time equally isn't unfair to anyone. No player should be entitled to more time than another just because of their army choice.

Take two steps back and think about this logically. Does it take more time to move 20 models or 200 models. If you think its the same then I can't even have a discussion with you on this subject since we can't even agree on basic facts.

Use movement trays for early turn movement. I do.

Yes movement trays are useful and do help but I dot even think they're that necessary. No you don't want to cheat by moving to far but after you move the 1st few models the rest can just pile in fairly quickly behind.

dkoz wrote:
Yes movement trays are useful and do help but I dot even think they're that necessary. No you don't want to cheat by moving to far but after you move the 1st few models the rest can just pile in fairly quickly behind.

Also true, I fortunately have access to a 3D printer so I just knocked a few out and I use them for quick set up and deployment. Most of the time I'll take 10 and actually stretch them out for zoning purpose and just place the other 2 trays behind the unit.

Wayniac wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Just what social aspects are you worried about losing?

The idea of playing a game while hanging out and talking, having a snack, etc. Chess clocks force you to dedicate your attention 100% to the game and playing as efficiently as possible, and any time you aren't on the clock you're carefully watching to make sure that your opponent doesn't put you back on the clock when they shouldn't, and constantly ready to jump in and execute your own actions as fast as possible once they legitimately put you back on the clock. Sure, the social factor isn't as important in a timed tournament, but it sure makes a difference if chess clocks become the norm outside of those tournaments.

And, let's face it: If chess clocks become the "tournament standard" thanks to ITC, you'll see chess clocks everywhere from LVO prep games to "40k game night" at the local game store.

I played at a local tournament a couple weeks ago. I was really annoyed how my opponent didn't pay attention to the things I was doing and was casually conversing with others or browsing his phone occasionally. At least give me the courtesy of your attention so that I can complete my turn.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
I do like how not a single chess clock supporter had a single reply to Peregrine's LOS clock issue. I guess because there isn't one? The best part is that's one example of many. There are too many interactions that require back and forth and abstract exchanges that can be exploited.

Also, it's like putting a timer on a baseball game. We have a game that is based on rounds and being forced to adhere to a time schedule to try and force those rounds in when sometimes it's just not possible.

The LOS issue is covered by the when you call a judge over you pause the clock. Also judges will be able to see what games might be a little more contentious by how much time is still on the clock and stay a little closer and even encourage the players to move it along a little.

I'm not opposed to chess clocks in general, but in 40k, where you often encounter asymmetrical forces, a chess clock would be unfairly disadvantageous to the player with the materially largest force, such as IG or Orks.

If you had a clock which could be adjusted to allow the player with the largest army more time than his opponent, I would be all for chess clocks. You could develop an easy formula to determine how many extra minutes you get per model above a certain threshold.

 Zingraff wrote:
I'm not opposed to chess clocks in general, but in 40k, where you often encounter asymmetrical forces, a chess clock would be unfairly disadvantageous to the player with the materially largest force, such as IG or Orks.

If you had a clock which could be adjusted to allow the player with the largest army more time than his opponent, I would be all for chess clocks. You could develop an easy formula to determine how many extra minutes you get per model above a certain threshold.

Of course the clock can be adjusted to do that but why should it?

Its not about giving extra minutes to the player with more models - it's about taking time from the other player to give to the player with more models.

 deviantduck wrote:

I do like how not a single chess clock supporter had a single reply to Peregrine's LOS clock issue. I guess because there isn't one? The best part is that's one example of many. There are too many interactions that require back and forth and abstract exchanges that can be exploited.

I didn't answer it because its not an issue. He asks, I shine the laser, make my roll. If he contests, I call the judge on my time. Judge makes the call. If it happens again, I ask the judge to stay and if I can't flip the clock to his time when he asks for this clarification. Next time it happens, I flip the clock to his time, and shine the laser for him, ask him to call the judge if he isn't happy with this.

I think the real question is... are the clocks a good defense against jerks? Absolutely not. That is why no one is saying clocks replace judges.

I've been playing wargames for 25 years. I think I've met maybe 3 or 4 players that fall into this category. They tend to weed themselves from the game rather quickly. Its not like this game is anonymous.

So I get the idea is that your searching for the issue that clock proponents come back and say Can't be done, and then it came be trumped long and loud, well it can't even deal with Whatever narrow edge case...






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zingraff wrote:
I'm not opposed to chess clocks in general, but in 40k, where you often encounter asymmetrical forces, a chess clock would be unfairly disadvantageous to the player with the materially largest force, such as IG or Orks.

If you had a clock which could be adjusted to allow the player with the largest army more time than his opponent, I would be all for chess clocks. You could develop an easy formula to determine how many extra minutes you get per model above a certain threshold.

This doesn't work. What if 2 players show with mirror forces, and each should get extra time? Should they both get extra time and the remaining players sit around watching after their games are done on proper time watching these 2 yahoos finish?

What if I find I can't play my force, so I swap to a much lower model count so I have the time I need to play it as I'm a much slower player? I should be punished and my time I need removed for some reason? How is that fair?

No. Please don't suggest this anymore. It is roundly a terrible idea.

From a purely practical point of view, handling a materially larger army is going to take more time, than a small elite force. If you field a "horde" army, you should expect your turns to be longer, simply due to the amount of time spent setting up, moving, etc., - that's just the reality of it. It's absurd and unreasonable to expect a "horde" army to be equally time efficient as a more conventional MEQ army.

I don't see chess clocks working in a reasonable, satisfactory manner, unless this asymmetry is taken into account in some way.

I've got a couple of suggestions as to how I imagine chess clocks could be applied to games of 40k:

1. Time is divided, for example 60/40 between the players, to provide the player with the "handicap" more time. The percentages allotted to the players is determined according to a straightforward formula, which awards more time to players with forces larger than a preset, generous threshold. Unless both players are in need of more time, in which case the proportions are more likely to come out 50/50.
2. Only Space Marine armies are allowed, and/or you can only use an army list created by the tournament organisers.
3. Your army cannot exceed a certain head count, which means an IG player might have to trade in a good portion of his infanty for massive LoW tanks.

 Zingraff wrote:
From a purely practical point of view, handling a materially larger army is going to take more time, than a small elite force. If you field a "horde" army, you should expect your turns to be longer, simply due to the amount of time spent setting up, moving, etc., - that's just the reality of it. It's absurd and unreasonable to expect a "horde" army to be equally time efficient as a more conventional MEQ army.

I don't see chess clocks working in a reasonable, satisfactory manner, unless this asymmetry is taken into account in some way.

I've got a couple of suggestions as to how I imagine chess clocks could be applied to games of 40k:

1. Time is divided, for example 60/40 between the players, to provide the player with the "handicap" more time. The percentages allotted to the players is determined according to a straightforward formula, which awards more time to players with forces larger than a preset, generous threshold. Unless both players are in need of more time, in which case the proportions are more likely to come out 50/50.
2. Only Space Marine armies are allowed, and/or you can only use an army list created by the tournament organisers.
3. Your army cannot exceed a certain head count, which means an IG player might have to trade in a good portion of his infanty for massive LoW tanks.

OR! You just learn to play your horde faster, skip unimportant actions, pre-plan phases, use game aides more effectively, etc.

 Zingraff wrote:
From a purely practical point of view, handling a materially larger army is going to take more time, than a small elite force. If you field a "horde" army, you should expect your turns to be longer, simply due to the amount of time spent setting up, moving, etc., - that's just the reality of it. It's absurd and unreasonable to expect a "horde" army to be equally time efficient as a more conventional MEQ army.

I don't see chess clocks working in a reasonable, satisfactory manner, unless this asymmetry is taken into account in some way.

I've got a couple of suggestions as to how I imagine chess clocks could be applied to games of 40k:

1. Time is divided, for example 60/40 between the players, to provide the player with the "handicap" more time. The percentages allotted to the players is determined according to a straightforward formula, which awards more time to players with forces larger than a preset, generous threshold. Unless both players are in need of more time, in which case the proportions are more likely to come out 50/50.
2. Only Space Marine armies are allowed, and/or you can only use an army list created by the tournament organisers.
3. Your army cannot exceed a certain head count, which means an IG player might have to trade in a good portion of his infanty for massive LoW tanks.

How many models does it take to trigger "asymetrical"? If I have 1 more model than my opponent do I get more time than him? How about 10? 20? You are choosing to field a large model count army. Why should I have to give up time to compensate you for your choice. If I have an elite army does that mean that I'm automatically getting to go first and/or choose which side of the table I get? What is your penalty for choosing a large army? Oh, maybe it's that you have less time per model to do things.

Reemule wrote:
This doesn't work. What if 2 players show with mirror forces, and each should get extra time? Should they both get extra time and the remaining players sit around watching after their games are done on proper time watching these 2 yahoos finish?

What if I find I can't play my force, so I swap to a much lower model count so I have the time I need to play it as I'm a much slower player? I should be punished and my time I need removed for some reason? How is that fair?

No. Please don't suggest this anymore. It is roundly a terrible idea.

Yes! Slower players should always be punished!

Why are you a "slower player"? If you've entered a tournament, you should be expected to be able to carry out the game with some degree of finesse and efficiency. Playing slowly on purpose is seriously disrespectful to your opponent(s), and one of the worst habits you can exhibit in any miniature or board game.

Either way, that's not what I was describing at all! If you have 30 dudes and I have 90, and we both spend X amount of time moving our game pieces, then you will spend 30X to my 90X number of minutes doing that. It's really very simple, and just one example of why a numerically larger force will take more time to play.

Also, I will not stop suggesting my idea! There's no such thing as 110%. If both armies are abnormally large, then the time allotted to their game will most likely be divided evenly between them, and they will probably find themselves running out of time.

@ Zingraff

Some people just have bad ideas and we can only be glad they're not in charge of anything.

I think we've pointed out exactly why that won't work if you bother to go back a page or two and read.

If you can magically play in half the time against a mirror match, then you can do it every game. if you can't complete a game against a mirror match then you should not have participated in the event with that army. Maybe it's on you or maybe it's on the TO for making rounds too short. But you cannot reasonably expect more time than your opponent.

Thankfully it seems that TO's will be dividing time equally.

And hey! with that extra time you gain from the player with less models finishing a bit faster than you, you can get your socialization on. Win Win.