Moderator: Cartographers
I think there should be some description, just so there isn't any confusion. Like I checked and there aren't really any ambiguous borders between the players and the field, but just the way you think about the field, your mind keeps telling you the players are "standing out of the screen" like in 3D, so it's a weird notion that they're actually straddling the different parts of the field.Evil DIMwit wrote:Yes. Does it looks like that will be a clarity problem?
Since there's no other way to access the fielders, common sense should say that they are assaulted by field territories.Army of GOD wrote:That's better, but I think someone might take that as a one way assault from the fielder to the territory.

C'mon natty. You know very well that I'm a moron.natty_dread wrote:Let's not assume players are morons.
Yes, but you already know how the fielders connect, so it doesn't matter.Army of GOD wrote:C'mon natty. You know very well that I'm a moron.natty_dread wrote:Let's not assume players are morons.

Actually, that's not true. Most maps that have arrows representing one-way assaults even have a legend text explicitly stating that the arrows are one-way assaults.arrows are clear indications of one-way attacks, always have been.

But why would anyone think otherwise? This is just confusing things more. Let's go back to the way you had it before, it worked fine.natty_dread wrote:Actually, that's not true. Most maps that have arrows representing one-way assaults even have a legend text explicitly stating that the arrows are one-way assaults.arrows are clear indications of one-way attacks, always have been.


