• Por favor, copia e pega a mensaxe de erro que ves na túa pantalla, se houbera algún.

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.

• Por favor, explica o que querías facer, o que fixeche e o que pasou

See move 75/76.

• Cal é o teu navegador?

• Por favor, copia/pega o texto amosado en inglés no canto do teu idioma. Se tes unha captura de pantalla deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar un servizo de hospedaxe de imaxes da túa elección (snipboard.io, por exemplo) para subila e copiar/pegar o enlace aquí. É este o texto dispoñible no sistema de tradución? Se é así, foi traducido fai máis de 24 horas?

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.

• Cal é o teu navegador?

• Por favor explica a túa suxestión de maneira precisa e concisa para que sexa o máis sinxelo posible entender o que queres dicir.

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.

• Cal é o teu navegador?

• Qué había na pantalla cando se quedou bloqueado? (mensaxe de erro?, pantalla en blanco?, unha parte da interface do xogo?)

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.

• Cal é o teu navegador?

• Qué parte das regras non se cumpriron na adaptación da 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.

• é visible a violación das regras na repetición? Se o é, en que número de movemento?

See move 75/76.

• Cal é o teu navegador?

• Qué acción de xogo querías realizar?

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.

• Qué é o que tratache de facer para activar esta acción do xogo?

See move 75/76.

• Qué sucedeu cando o fixeche (a mensaxe de erro, mensaxe na barra de estado do xogo, ...)?

• Cal é o teu navegador?

• En que paso do xogo ocorreu o problema (cal foi a instrucción actual do xogo)?

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.

• Qué sucedeu cando tratache de facer unha acción de xogo (mensaxe de erro, mensaxe na barra de estado do xogo, ...)?

See move 75/76.

• Cal é o teu navegador?

• Por favor, describe o problema de visualización. Se tes unha captura de pantalla deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar un servizo de hospedaxe de imaxes da túa elección (snipboard.io, por exemplo) para subila e copiar/pegar o enlace aquí.

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.

• Cal é o teu navegador?

• Por favor, copia/pega o texto amosado en inglés no canto do teu idioma. Se tes unha captura de pantalla deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar un servizo de hospedaxe de imaxes da túa elección (snipboard.io, por exemplo) para subila e copiar/pegar o enlace aquí. É este o texto dispoñible no sistema de tradución? Se é así, foi traducido fai máis de 24 horas?

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.

• Cal é o teu navegador?

• Por favor explica a túa suxestión de maneira precisa e concisa para que sexa o máis sinxelo posible entender o que queres dicir.

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.

• Cal é o teu navegador?