Here is an example. So if i want to connect 3-2 downwards, placed in the highlighted cell so that I can close the loop with a 2-2 for example is what I meant. Again might be intentional and required constraint to make choices more limited, but felt at the time limiting. BTW originally i was not happy because if you please the 3-2 downwards in the original down location you only have 1 place at the downward 2-1 bone. And i thought it would be fixed by placing it downward elsewhere but i see it's not solving it the way i thought it would :) Anyhow really a super game and a very nicely executed idea!
All right! Replaying the game not as tired like yesterday was much better :) So yes i got the point of getting more and more limitation with the skulls and makes sense so it limits the user choices which might be too big after some time. I have found another kind of placement thought which i was not sure why i cannot have (see above). Why i cannot place the 4-1 between the two 4s? (not intentional but you see the bug is hiding some important detail :) under the bug we have 4 too). Maybe limiting instead of skulls it can be a map or a dungeon kind of thing where you can continue to expore and maybe bigger / smaller rooms are available that would be maybe more interesting and get the same effect as skulls? Anyway really cool game.