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

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

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

See move 75/76.

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

• Калі ласка, скапіруйце тэкст на англійскай замест перакладу на ваш мову. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here. Дзе можна знайсьці гэты тэкст у сістэме перакладу? Калі так, ці быў ён перакладзены больш за 24 гадзін таму?

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

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

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

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

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

• Якая частка правілаў не выкананая ў версіі BGA

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

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

See move 75/76.

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

• Якое гульнявое дзеянне вы хацелі зрабіць?

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

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

See move 75/76.

• 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)?

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

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

See move 75/76.

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

• Калі ласка, апішыце памылку адлюстравання. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here.

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

• Калі ласка, скапіруйце тэкст на англійскай замест перакладу на ваш мову. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here. Дзе можна знайсьці гэты тэкст у сістэме перакладу? Калі так, ці быў ён перакладзены больш за 24 гадзін таму?

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?

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

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Якім браўзэрам вы карыстаецеся?