• Merci de copier-coller le message d'erreur qui s'affiche à l'écran, s'il y a lieu.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Veuillez expliquer ce que vous vouliez faire, ce que vous avez fait et ce qu'il s'est passé

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• SVP copiez / collez ici le texte affiché en anglais au lieu de votre langue. Si vous avez une capture d'écran de ce bug (pensez-y !), vous pouvez utiliser Imgur.com pour la télécharger et copier-coller le lien ici.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Ce texte est-il disponible dans le système de traduction ? Si oui, a-t-il été traduit depuis plus de 24 heures ?

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• Merci d'expliquer votre suggestion de manière précise et concise, de façon à ce qu'il soit aussi simple que possible de comprendre ce que vous voulez dire.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• Qu'affichait l'écran lorsque vous avez été bloqué(e) (Un écran vierge ? Une partie de l'interface du jeu ? Un message d'erreur ?)

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• Quelle partie des règles n'a pas été respectée par l'adaptation BGA ?

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• La violation de règle est-elle visible dans le replay de la partie ? Si oui, à quel numéro de coup ?

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• Quelle action de jeu vouliez-vous faire ?

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Qu'avez-vous essayé de faire pour déclencher cette action de jeu ?

• Que s'est-il passé lorsque vous avez essayé de faire cela (message d'erreur, message dans la barre d'état du jeu...) ?

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• À quelle étape de la partie le problème est-il apparu ? Quelles instructions le jeu affichait-il ?

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Que s'est-il passé lorsque vous avez essayé de faire cette action de jeu (message d'erreur, message dans la barre d'état du jeu...) ?

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• Veuillez décrire le problème d'affichage. Si vous avez une capture d'écran de ce bug (pensez-y !), vous pouvez utiliser Imgur.com pour la télécharger et copier-coller le lien ici.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• SVP copiez / collez ici le texte affiché en anglais au lieu de votre langue. Si vous avez une capture d'écran de ce bug (pensez-y !), vous pouvez utiliser Imgur.com pour la télécharger et copier-coller le lien ici.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Ce texte est-il disponible dans le système de traduction ? Si oui, a-t-il été traduit depuis plus de 24 heures ?

• Quel est votre navigateur ?

• Merci d'expliquer votre suggestion de manière précise et concise, de façon à ce qu'il soit aussi simple que possible de comprendre ce que vous voulez dire.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Quel est votre navigateur ?