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

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.

• 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. Falls du einen Screenshot dieses Fehlers hast (optimale Vorgehensweise), kannst du ihn bei Imgur.com hochladen, den Link kopieren und hier einfügen.

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.

• Ist dieser Text auf der Übersetzungsseite verfügbar? Wenn ja, wurde dieser vor mehr als 24 Stunden übersetzt?

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

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

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.

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

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

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.

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

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

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.

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

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

• Welche Spielaktion wolltest du durchführen?

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.

• 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?

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.

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

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

• Bitte beschreibe die Anzeigeschwierigkeiten. Falls du einen Screenshot dieses Fehlers hast (optimale Vorgehensweise), kannst du ihn bei Imgur.com hochladen, den Link kopieren und hier einfügen.

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.

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

• Bitte kopiere den Text, der in Englisch anstatt in deiner Sprache angezeigt wird, und füge ihn hier ein. Falls du einen Screenshot dieses Fehlers hast (optimale Vorgehensweise), kannst du ihn bei Imgur.com hochladen, den Link kopieren und hier einfügen.

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.

• Ist dieser Text auf der Übersetzungsseite verfügbar? Wenn ja, wurde dieser vor mehr als 24 Stunden übersetzt?

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

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

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.

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?