• Lūdzu nokopē/ielīmē kļūdas ziņu, ko redzi ekrānā, ja tāda ir.

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.

• Lūdzu paskaidro, ko Tu vēlējies darīt, ko Tu izdarīji un kas notika

See move 75/76.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu iekopē tekstu, kas redzams angļu, nevis tavā valodā. 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. Vai šis teksts ir pieejams tulkošanas sistēmā? Ja jā, vai tas ir ticis tulkots pēdējo 24 stundu laikā?

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.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu, paskaidrojiet savu ieteikumu precīzi un kodolīgi, lai tas būtu pēc iespējas vieglāk saprotams.

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.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Kas tika attēlots ekrānā, kad Tu tiki bloķēts (tukšs ekrāns? Daļa no spēles interfeisa? Ziņa par kļūdu?)?

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.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Kura noteikumu daļa netika ņemta vērā BGA versijā?

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.

• Vai noteikumu pārkāpums ir redzams spēles atkārtojumā? Ja jā, tad kurā gājienā?

See move 75/76.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Kādu spēles darbību Tu vēlējies veikt?

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.

• Ko tu dari, lai panāktu šo spēles darbību?

See move 75/76.

• Kas notika, kad veicāt šo darbību (kļūdas paziņojums, spēles informācijas paziņojums,...)?

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Kurā spēles solī problēma parādījās (kas bija tā brīža spēles instrukcija)?

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.

• Kas notika, kad mēģinājāt veikt spēles darbību (kļūdas paziņojums, spēles informācijas paziņojums,...)?

See move 75/76.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu aprakstiet radušos problēmu. 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.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu iekopē tekstu, kas redzams angļu, nevis tavā valodā. 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. Vai šis teksts ir pieejams tulkošanas sistēmā? Ja jā, vai tas ir ticis tulkots pēdējo 24 stundu laikā?

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.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu, paskaidrojiet savu ieteikumu precīzi un kodolīgi, lai tas būtu pēc iespējas vieglāk saprotams.

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.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?