The only thing we could do is repeat the step.

Which is not reall "Draw-back" at all.

Yeah... Unless it doesn't mean "draw"?

That would be another option, but I think it is too far fetched...

That would have four right arrows in a row surrounding the line break.

Brainstorm on step 8: Words that come to mind:... Everyone!

Draw, Outline, Trace... ?

Traceback would give the same as drawback, wouldn't it?

Not quite. It could be something like "retrace your steps".

Regarding other options: "Removing lines from step 3" would not really change the picture, so I think we can skip that one.

Well, "retrace step 4"?

Yeah, I agree.

But what is "retrace step 4" other than what we discussed for "drawback step 4" ?

Retrace means "do again", not "do again backwards".

And that would work.

Ok. try it!

Alright, give me a sec

a sec! I would need at least 15min! :c)

Well I don't thoroughly document all my steps like you do :P

Well, that's because you quite likely don't make SO MANY mistakes as I do ;c)

Why look out of the?

Window?

@tpk Used it how (as what code?)

@BmyGuest Actually, never mind. It wouldn't. Sorry for the false hope D:

Hm. So we still need step 8 then... Ideas for words anyone?

I don't think it means actual drawing.

If it was, it'd use the same pen as 5, 3, and the intro.

happy?

@tpk: Using quip quip, i get "I NEED EXPRESERTA" :c)

And I also don't think we have to do any more sliding (until step 9) - it's already in the right position for interpreting the dot in step 9 as the dot tile, and no other position would work for that.

If we do not change the slides in step 8, we may as well execture step 9 and see what it does...

But step 8 might be something else that modifies the tiles.

For word 1: Emboss ?

Oh, maybe!

Also: Write, Note, sketch...

How about "Note behind third ?"

Sounds interesting.

But maybe we should not rebus it too much. Step 1 to 7 were rather direct "instructions". so CAN we take 8 literally in some way as well?

Remember how I was talking about redrawing the lines from the third?

Maybe we need to do that, but on the "back"?

Oh, nice idea. But what would that give us?

No idea.

I think I'm burnt out on ideas for tonight. Maybe time to go.

(And give Alconja a chance to tell us, how wrong we are and that we're barking up the completly wrong tree ;c) Or not... 8c] )

@BmyGuest we've probably actually got everything from 4 to 8 wrong :P

@Deusovi when you did step 3 you treated shapes as face representatives, but then broke your own rule with E---

Morning folks. Just catching up with your progress, but you're definitely getting closer...

Hi @Alconja, see me answer for our progress

Typical just as Alconja comes on to tell me my progress and so on, I have to go to bed :P

Night all

You're getting damn close... A few misplaced lines, which I'm tempted to give some help on, since it falls into unverifyable territory, which I don't like in puzzles..

You could shift your circadian rhythm to sleep at 5am like I do :P

@Alconja Yeah, but I did that because the picture explicitly said to. It's not like there was another E I could use...

@Deusovi No the E is fine, I'm talking about the path through the diamond...

Yes, I know. The picture said "go through the diamond", so I went through the diamond. :P (I couldn't see any way to disambiguate which dot I should go through otherwise.)

As said previously, shapes are representative of faces... And it goes through the middle of the diamond... (I see now that logic is very much a failing of the puzzle)

Oh, middle of the face!

Maybe if you'd put a square around the diamond, it would've made more sense.

Yeah, in hind sight I should've centered all the shapes

With that design flaw in mind, your triangle lines might warrant another look too

I didn't draw a line connecting the centers of the triangles - I used the letters. Does that mean the dot didn't represent the letters?

The dot represents a dot. :) and where is the dot?

Well there are several dots. Nine of them for each triangle. I'm gonna assume you meant the centre dots again, though.

Well the "star" is literally the two triangles joined by the dot in their centre.

I interpreted the dot as a "variable" that could represent any letter.

And the position of the letters in step 3 didn't matter, so I didn't think the position of the dot suddenly would.

Alright, you (probably?) don't have to give any more hints for now.

All the line drawing steps are about joining dots. There's just different ways of identifying dots. Some with letters, some with positions.

@Deusovi agreed. Just felt like that lack of clarity was becoming unfair since there was no way of checking if you were right until further on.

I think when this is solved, I'll redraw the faces slightly to make it clearer in case others try to solve it in the future.

After step 5:

I wonder if I'd just numbered/lettered the faces if people would've still made the same assumption...

After step 7:

Alright, back to figuring out what step 8 could mean.

...Nnnope, nothing.

:)

...I liked the other one better. :P

Other line pattern?

The one that was wrong. :P I thought I was getting somewhere.

Well you were.. Kind of... You correctly assumed everything needed to join dots, and noticed that the 45° lines looked more correct.

@Deusovi btw you've made one minor error along the way here... (implementation error, not logic error)

Hm... just a sliding mistake?

I redid the slides and they matched, maybe something else?

Could you check my lines? I haven't found anything wrong with them, but...

I don't know how the lines could be wrong, I don't see anything strange either