• Пожалуйста, скопируйте/вставьте текст ошибки, которую вы видите на экране (если она есть).

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.

• Пожалуйста, объясните, что вы хотели сделать, что вы сделали и что случилось

See move 75/76.

• Какой браузер вы используете?

• Пожалуйста, скопируйте/вставьте текст, который отображается на английском языке, вместо вашего. Если у вас есть скриншот этой ошибки (что является хорошей практикой), вы можете использовать любой сервис для размещения изображений (например, snipboard.io), чтобы загрузить его и скопировать/вставить ссылку сюда. Доступен ли этот текст в системе перевода? Если да, был ли он переведён более 24 часов назад?

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.

• Какой браузер вы используете?

• Пожалуйста, точно и кратко опишите своё предложение, чтобы сделать его наиболее доступным для понимания.

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.

• Какой браузер вы используете?

• Что было изображено на экране, когда вас заблокировало? (Пустой экран? Часть игрового стола? Сообщение об ошибке?)

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.

• Какой браузер вы используете?

• Какая часть правил не соблюдена в версии 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.

• Видно ли нарушение правил в повторе игры? Если да, то на каком ходу?

See move 75/76.

• Какой браузер вы используете?

• Какое игровое действие вы хотели совершить?

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.

• Что вы пытались сделать, чтобы выполнить это игровое действие?

See move 75/76.

• Что произошло, когда вы попробовали сделать это (сообщение об ошибке, сообщение в строке состояния игры...)?

• Какой браузер вы используете?

• На каком шаге игры произошла проблема (какой была текущая игровая инструкция)?

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.

• Что произошло, когда вы попробовали совершить игровое действие (сообщение об ошибке, сообщение в строке состояния игры...)?

See move 75/76.

• Какой браузер вы используете?

• Пожалуйста, опишите ошибку отображения. Если у вас есть скриншот этой ошибки (что является хорошей практикой), вы можете использовать любой сервис для размещения изображений (например, snipboard.io), чтобы загрузить его и скопировать/вставить ссылку сюда.

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.

• Какой браузер вы используете?

• Пожалуйста, скопируйте/вставьте текст, который отображается на английском языке, вместо вашего. Если у вас есть скриншот этой ошибки (что является хорошей практикой), вы можете использовать любой сервис для размещения изображений (например, snipboard.io), чтобы загрузить его и скопировать/вставить ссылку сюда. Доступен ли этот текст в системе перевода? Если да, был ли он переведён более 24 часов назад?

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.

• Какой браузер вы используете?

• Пожалуйста, точно и кратко опишите своё предложение, чтобы сделать его наиболее доступным для понимания.

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.

• Какой браузер вы используете?