• Falls du eine Fehlermeldung auf dem Bildschirm siehst, bitte kopieren und einfügen.

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Bitte erkläre, was du machen wolltest, was du dann getan hast und was dann passiert ist

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

• Bitte kopiere den Text, der in Englisch anstatt in deiner Sprache angezeigt wird, und füge ihn hier ein. Wenn du einen Screenshot dieses Fehlers hast (gute Praxis), kannst du einen Bild‑Hosting‑Dienst deiner Wahl verwenden (snipboard.io zum Beispiel), um ihn hochzuladen und den Link hier einzufügen. Ist dieser Text auf der Übersetzungsseite verfügbar? Wenn ja, wurde dieser vor mehr als 24 Stunden übersetzt?

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

• Bitte erkläre deinen Vorschlag so präzise und genau wie möglich, damit er leicht zu verstehen ist.

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

• Was wurde auf dem Bildschirm angezeigt, als du blockiert wurdest (weißer Bildschirm? Teil der Spieloberfläche? Fehlermeldung?)

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

• Welcher Teil der Spielregel wurde durch die BGA-Adaption nicht beachtet?

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Ist der Regelverstoß in der Spielwiederholung zu sehen? Falls ja, bei welcher Zugnummer?

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

• Welche Spielaktion wolltest du durchführen?

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Was versuchst du, um diese Spielaktion auszulösen?

• Was passiert, wenn du dies versuchst (Fehlermeldung, Statusmeldung des Spiels, ...)?

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

• An welcher Stelle im Spiel ist das Problem aufgetreten? Was war die aktuelle Spielanweisung?

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Was passiert, wenn du die Spielaktion ausführen möchtest (Fehlermeldung, Statusmeldung des Spiels, ...)?

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

• Bitte beschreibe die Anzeigeschwierigkeiten. Wenn du einen Screenshot dieses Fehlers hast (gute Praxis), kannst du einen Bild‑Hosting‑Dienst deiner Wahl verwenden (snipboard.io zum Beispiel), um ihn hochzuladen und den Link hier einzufügen.

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

• Bitte kopiere den Text, der in Englisch anstatt in deiner Sprache angezeigt wird, und füge ihn hier ein. Wenn du einen Screenshot dieses Fehlers hast (gute Praxis), kannst du einen Bild‑Hosting‑Dienst deiner Wahl verwenden (snipboard.io zum Beispiel), um ihn hochzuladen und den Link hier einzufügen. Ist dieser Text auf der Übersetzungsseite verfügbar? Wenn ja, wurde dieser vor mehr als 24 Stunden übersetzt?

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

• Bitte erkläre deinen Vorschlag so präzise und genau wie möglich, damit er leicht zu verstehen ist.

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?