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

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• 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.

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• 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.

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

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

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

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

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

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

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?

• Welche Spielaktion wolltest du durchführen?

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• 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?

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• 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.

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• 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.

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• 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.

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• Welchen Browser benutzt du?