tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20978354.post7278749918868333736..comments2010-07-08T21:20:23.887-04:00Michael R. Kellerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07170175184112067309noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20978354.post-77288099076030538862010-07-08T21:20:23.880-04:002010-07-08T21:20:23.880-04:00That is a good point. I haven't seen this be a problem in previous versions (the approval track has always overlaid one of the bridges), but I should be careful about the potential for confusion.GDWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07170175184112067309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20978354.post-39413747328266643212010-07-08T10:22:30.902-04:002010-07-08T10:22:30.902-04:00(Oops, I mean "park in the upper left")Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20978354.post-11457736860895873772010-07-08T10:21:45.386-04:002010-07-08T10:21:45.386-04:00My only comment is that it seems like a bad idea to put game-functional elements (bridges, that park in the upper right) under other functional elements like tracks, particularly if, as I assume, player tokens will be placed on those. I played a game of RoboRally a few weeks back where a player's placement of his pawn inadvertently covered a wall at the edge of the space he was on, and once revealed this blew my carefully conceived plan to smithereens! This was just an accident of piece placement in that case; in your game, having to remind players "yes, that is a park under the score track", or "yes, those spaces are connected by that bridge under the white piece on that track there" will be much more frustrating for players -- especially if you send it out for a blind playtest -- than if just avoid the problem altogether by moving those tracks to a different part of the board.Jeffhttp://jwarrend.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com