• Prosím skopíruj a vlož chybové hlásenie, ktoré si videl na obrazovke, ak sa nejaké vyskytlo.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Prosím vysvetli, čo si chcel/a spraviť, čo si spravil/a a čo sa stalo

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Aký prehliadač používaš?

• Skopíruj/vlož text zobrazený v angličtine namiesto tvojho jazyka. Ak máš screenshot (dobrý zvyk), môžeš použiť Imgur.com na jeho nahranie a skopírovať sem odkaz na neho.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Je tento text dostupný v prekladovom systéme? Ak áno, bol preložený po dlhšie ako 24 hodín?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Aký prehliadač používaš?

• Prosím presne a stručne vysvetli svoj podnet, aby bolo čo najjednoduchšie pochopiť, ako to myslíš.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Aký prehliadač používaš?

• Čo sa objavilo na obrazovke, keď si bol zablokovaný (Prázdna obrazovka? Časť herného rozhrania? Chybové hlásenie?)?

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Aký prehliadač používaš?

• Ktorá časť pravidiel nebola dodržaná v BGA adaptácii?

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Je možné vidieť porušenie pravidiel na zázname z hry? Ak áno, aké je číslo ťahu?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Aký prehliadač používaš?

• Aký herný ťah si chcel urobiť?

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Čo si skúsil aby si vyvolal túto akciu?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Čo sa stalo keď si spravil túto hernú akciu (chybové hlásenie, hlásenie v stavovom pruhu, ...)?

• Aký prehliadač používaš?

• Kedy v priebehu hry sa problém vyskytol (aká bola prebiehajúca herná inštrukcia)?

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Čo sa stalo keď si spravil túto hernú akciu (chybové hlásenie, hlásenie v stavovom pruhu, ...)?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Aký prehliadač používaš?

• Prosím popíš viditeľný problém. Ak máš screenshot (dobrý zvyk), môžeš použiť Imgur.com na jeho nahranie a skopírovať sem odkaz na neho.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Aký prehliadač používaš?

• Skopíruj/vlož text zobrazený v angličtine namiesto tvojho jazyka. Ak máš screenshot (dobrý zvyk), môžeš použiť Imgur.com na jeho nahranie a skopírovať sem odkaz na neho.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Je tento text dostupný v prekladovom systéme? Ak áno, bol preložený po dlhšie ako 24 hodín?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Aký prehliadač používaš?

• Prosím presne a stručne vysvetli svoj podnet, aby bolo čo najjednoduchšie pochopiť, ako to myslíš.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Aký prehliadač používaš?