• Proszę skopiować i wkleić treść błędu wyświetloną na ekranie, o ile jakaś się pojawia.

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Proszę opisać co chciałeś zrobić, co zrobiłeś i co się stało

See move 75/76.

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

• Proszę skopiować i wkleić tekst wyświetlany w języku angielskim zamiast w twoim języku. Jeśli posiadasz zrzut ekranu przedstawiający ten błąd (dobra praktyka), możesz skorzystać z wybranej przez siebie usługi hostującej zdjęcia (np. snipboard.io), aby go przesłać, a następnie skopiuj i wklej link tutaj. Czy ten tekst jest dostępny w systemie tłumaczeń? Jeśli tak, to czy został przetłumaczony więcej niż 24 godziny temu?

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

• Wyjaśnij swoją propozycję precyzyjnie i zwięźle, tak aby jak najłatwiej zrozumieć, co masz na myśli.

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

• Co wyświetlało się na ekranie kiedy zostałeś zablokowany (Pusty ekran? Część interfejsu gry? Komunikat o błędzie?)

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

• Która z zasad gry nie była przestrzegana w adaptacji BGA

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Czy naruszenie zasad gry jest widoczne w powtórce rozgrywki? Jeżeli tak, to w ruchu o jakim numerze?

See move 75/76.

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

• Jaką akcję w grze chciałeś wykonać?

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Co starasz się zrobić by uruchomić tę akcję w grze?

See move 75/76.

• Co się stało kiedy próbowałeś to zrobić (komunikat o błędzie, komunikat na pasku stanu gry, ...)?

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

• W którym momencie gry pojawił się problem (jakie było aktualne polecenie w grze)?

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Co się stało kiedy próbowałeś wykonać akcję w grze (komunikat o błędzie, komunikat na pasku stanu gry, ...)?

See move 75/76.

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

• Proszę opisać problem z wyświetlaniem. Jeśli posiadasz zrzut ekranu przedstawiający ten błąd (dobra praktyka), możesz skorzystać z wybranej przez siebie usługi hostującej zdjęcia (np. snipboard.io), aby go przesłać, a następnie skopiuj i wklej link tutaj.

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

• Proszę skopiować i wkleić tekst wyświetlany w języku angielskim zamiast w twoim języku. Jeśli posiadasz zrzut ekranu przedstawiający ten błąd (dobra praktyka), możesz skorzystać z wybranej przez siebie usługi hostującej zdjęcia (np. snipboard.io), aby go przesłać, a następnie skopiuj i wklej link tutaj. Czy ten tekst jest dostępny w systemie tłumaczeń? Jeśli tak, to czy został przetłumaczony więcej niż 24 godziny temu?

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

• Wyjaśnij swoją propozycję precyzyjnie i zwięźle, tak aby jak najłatwiej zrozumieć, co masz na myśli.

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?