• Kérjük másold be a hiba üzenetet, amit kaptál, ha volt ilyen.

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.

• Kérjük mondd el, hogy mit szerettél volna csinálni, mit csináltál és mi történt

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Milyen böngészőt használsz?

• Kérjük, másold az angolul megjelenített szöveget, ahelyett, hogy lefordítanád a Te nyelvedre! Ha van screenshot-od erről a bugról (ajánlott), használd a Imgur.com, hogy feltöltsd, majd másold be a linket.

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.

• Létezik ez a szöveg a fordítási rendszerben? Ha igen, több mint 24 órája lett lefordítva?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Milyen böngészőt használsz?

• Kérjük magyarázd el a javaslatodat pontosan és tömören, hogy amennyire lehet, könnyen érthető legyen, mire is gondolsz!

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.

• Milyen böngészőt használsz?

• Mit láttál a képernyőn, amikor blokkolva lettél? (Üres képernyő? A játék felületének egy részét? Hiba üzenet?)

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.

• Milyen böngészőt használsz?

• A szabályok melyik részét nem vette figyelembe a BGA adaptáció

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.

• Ez a szabály áthágása látható a visszajátszásban? Ha igen, melyik lépésszámnál?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Milyen böngészőt használsz?

• Melyik játékbeli akciót akartad csinálni, amikor a hiba előjött?

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.

• Mit akartál csinálni, hogy ezt a játékbeli akciót elindíthasd?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Mi történt amikor megpróbáltad ezt (hiba üzenet, játék státusz üzenet, ...)?

• Milyen böngészőt használsz?

• A játék melyik lépésénél lépett fel a probléma? (mi volt a kiírt utasítás?)

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.

• Mi történt amikor megpróbáltad ezt az akciót (hiba üzenet, játék státusz üzenet, ...)?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Milyen böngészőt használsz?

• Kérjük, írd le a megjelenítési hibát! Ha van screenshot-od erről a bugról (ajánlott), használd a Imgur.com, hogy feltöltsd, majd másold be a linket.

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.

• Milyen böngészőt használsz?

• Kérjük, másold az angolul megjelenített szöveget, ahelyett, hogy lefordítanád a Te nyelvedre! Ha van screenshot-od erről a bugról (ajánlott), használd a Imgur.com, hogy feltöltsd, majd másold be a linket.

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.

• Létezik ez a szöveg a fordítási rendszerben? Ha igen, több mint 24 órája lett lefordítva?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Milyen böngészőt használsz?

• Kérjük magyarázd el a javaslatodat pontosan és tömören, hogy amennyire lehet, könnyen érthető legyen, mire is gondolsz!

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.

• Milyen böngészőt használsz?