• Kui näed ekraanil veateadet, kopeeri see siia.

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.

• Kirjelda, mida sa soovisid teha, mida sa tegid ja mis juhtus

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Palun kopeeri/kleebi kuvatud tekst inglise keeles, mitte sinu oma keeles. Kui sul on sellest veast ekraanipilt (hea tava), saad kasutada Imgur.com selle üleslaadimiseks ja lingi siia kopeerida.

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 see tekst on kättesaadav tõlkesüsteemis ? Kui jah, kas see on tõlgitud rohkem kui 24 tundi tagasi?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Palun selgita oma ettepanekut täpselt ja lühidalt, et oleks võimalikult lihtne mõista, mida silmas pead.

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.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Mis oli ekraanil, kui sind blokeeriti? (Tühi ekraan? Osa mänguliidesest? Veateade?)

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.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Millist osa BGA kohandamisest ei järgitud

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 reeglite rikkumist on mängu taasesitusel näha? Kui jah, siis mitmendal käigul?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Milline oli mängu tegevus, mida tahtsid sooritada?

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.

• Mida püüdsid teha, et seda mängu tegevust käivitada?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Mis juhtus, kui seda proovisite (veateade, mängu olekuriba teade, ...)?

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Millises mängu etapis esines probleem (Mis oli selle mänguetapi instruktsioon)?

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.

• Mis juhtus, kui proovisite sooritada seda mängu käiku (veateade, mängu olekuriba sõnum, ...)?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Kirjelda kuvamise probleemi. Kui sul on sellest veast ekraanipilt (hea tava), saad kasutada Imgur.com selle üleslaadimiseks ja lingi siia kopeerida.

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.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Palun kopeeri/kleebi kuvatud tekst inglise keeles, mitte sinu oma keeles. Kui sul on sellest veast ekraanipilt (hea tava), saad kasutada Imgur.com selle üleslaadimiseks ja lingi siia kopeerida.

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 see tekst on kättesaadav tõlkesüsteemis ? Kui jah, kas see on tõlgitud rohkem kui 24 tundi tagasi?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Palun selgita oma ettepanekut täpselt ja lühidalt, et oleks võimalikult lihtne mõista, mida silmas pead.

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.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?