• Калі ласка, скапіруйце тэкст памылкі, якую вы бачыце на экране (калі яна ёсць).

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Калі ласка, растлумачце, што вы хацелі зрабіць, што вы зрабілі і што здарылася

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

• Калі ласка, скапіруйце тэкст на англійскай замест перакладу на ваш мову. Калі ў вас ёсць скрыншот гэтай памылкі (добрая звычка), вы можаце скарыстацца Imgur.com, каб загрузіць яго і ўставіць сюды спасылку.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Дзе можна знайсьці гэты тэкст у сістэме перакладу? Калі так, ці быў ён перакладзены больш за 24 гадзін таму?

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

• Калі ласка, дакладна і коратка апішыце сваю прапанову, каб зрабіць яе найбольш даступнай для разумення.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

• Што было намалявана на экране, калі вас заблакавала? (Пусты экран? Частка гульнявога стала? Паведамленне пра памылку?)

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

• Якая частка правілаў не выкананая ў версіі BGA

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Ці відаць парушэнне правілаў у паўторы гульні? Калі так, то на якім хаду?

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

• Якое гульнявое дзеянне вы хацелі зрабіць?

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Што вы спрабавалі зрабіць, каб выканаць гэтае гульнявое дзеянне?

• Што адбылося, калі вы паспрабавалі зрабіць гэта (паведамленне пра памылку, паведамленне ў радку стану гульні ...)?

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

• На якім кроку гульні адбылася праблема (якая была інструкцыя ў той момант у гульні)?

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Што адбылося, калі вы паспрабавалі здзейсніць гульнявое дзеянне (паведамленне пра памылку, паведамленне ў радку стану гульні ...)?

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

• Калі ласка, апішыце памылку адлюстравання. Калі ў вас ёсць скрыншот гэтай памылкі (добрая звычка), вы можаце скарыстацца Imgur.com, каб загрузіць яго і ўставіць сюды спасылку.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

• Калі ласка, скапіруйце тэкст на англійскай замест перакладу на ваш мову. Калі ў вас ёсць скрыншот гэтай памылкі (добрая звычка), вы можаце скарыстацца Imgur.com, каб загрузіць яго і ўставіць сюды спасылку.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Дзе можна знайсьці гэты тэкст у сістэме перакладу? Калі так, ці быў ён перакладзены больш за 24 гадзін таму?

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

• Калі ласка, дакладна і коратка апішыце сваю прапанову, каб зрабіць яе найбольш даступнай для разумення.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?