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

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.

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

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

• Proszę skopiować i wkleić tekst wyświetlany w języku angielskim zamiast w twoim języku. Jeżeli masz zrzut ekranu z tym błędem (dobry zwyczaj) możesz użyć Imgur.com, żeby wrzucić go do Internetu i potem skopiować łącze do niego tutaj.

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.

• Czy ten tekst jest dostępny w systemie tłumaczeń? Jeśli tak, to czy został przetłumaczony więcej niż 24 godziny temu?

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

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

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.

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

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

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.

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

• Która z zasad gry nie była przestrzegana w adaptacji BGA

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.

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

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

• Jaką akcję w grze chciałeś wykonać?

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.

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

• 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)?

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.

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

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

• Proszę opisać problem z wyświetlaniem. Jeżeli masz zrzut ekranu z tym błędem (dobry zwyczaj) możesz użyć Imgur.com, żeby wrzucić go do Internetu i potem skopiować łącze do niego tutaj.

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.

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

• Proszę skopiować i wkleić tekst wyświetlany w języku angielskim zamiast w twoim języku. Jeżeli masz zrzut ekranu z tym błędem (dobry zwyczaj) możesz użyć Imgur.com, żeby wrzucić go do Internetu i potem skopiować łącze do niego tutaj.

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.

• Czy ten tekst jest dostępny w systemie tłumaczeń? Jeśli tak, to czy został przetłumaczony więcej niż 24 godziny temu?

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?

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

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.

• Jaką masz przeglądarkę?