• Jei ekrane matote kokį nors klaidos pranešimą, įklijuokite jį čia.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Prašome paaiškinti, ką norėjote padaryti, ką padarėte ir kas atsitiko

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Kokia tavo naršyklė?

• Prašome nukopijuoti / įklijuoti tekstą, rodomą anglų kalba, o ne savo kalba. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here. Ar šis tekstas yra translation system? Jei taip, ar jis buvo išverstas daugiau nei 24 valandas?

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Kokia tavo naršyklė?

• Prašome paaiškinti siūlomą pakeitimą tiksliai ir glaustai, kad būtų kuo lengviau suprasti, ką jūs siūlote.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Kokia tavo naršyklė?

• Kas buvo pavaizduota ekrane, tave užblokavus (juodas ekranas? Nepilna žaidimo sąsaja? Klaidos pranešimas?)

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Kokia tavo naršyklė?

• Į kurias taisykles neatsižvelgiama BGA žaidimo versijoje

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Ar taisyklių pažeidimas matomas žaidimo atkartojime? Jeigu taip, kuris veiksmo numeris?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Kokia tavo naršyklė?

• Kurį žaidimo veiksmą norėjai atlikti?

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Ką reikia padaryti, kad iššauktum šį žaidimo veiksmą?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Kas įvyko kai bandei tai padaryti (klaidos pranešimas, žaidimo būsenos pranešimas, ...)?

• Kokia tavo naršyklė?

• Kuriuo žaidimo metu problema atsirado (koks buvo tuometinis žaidimo nurodymas)?

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Kas įvyko kai bandei atlikti žaidimo veiksmą (klaidos pranešimas, žaidimo būsenos pranešimas, ...)?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Kokia tavo naršyklė?

• Aprašykite rodomą problemą. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Kokia tavo naršyklė?

• Prašome nukopijuoti / įklijuoti tekstą, rodomą anglų kalba, o ne savo kalba. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here. Ar šis tekstas yra translation system? Jei taip, ar jis buvo išverstas daugiau nei 24 valandas?

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Kokia tavo naršyklė?

• Prašome paaiškinti siūlomą pakeitimą tiksliai ir glaustai, kad būtų kuo lengviau suprasti, ką jūs siūlote.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Kokia tavo naršyklė?