• Si us plau, copia i enganxa el missatge d'error que veus a la pantalla, si és que n'hi ha algun.

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Si us plau, què volies fer, què vas fer i que va succeir

• Quin és el meu navegador?

• Si us plau, copieu/enganxeu el text mostrat en anglès en comptes del teu idioma. 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. És aquest text disponible al sistema de traducció? Si és així, ha sigut traduït fa més de 24 hores?

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Quin és el meu navegador?

• Si us plau, expliqueu el vostre suggeriment de manera precisa i concisa, per que sigui el més fàcil d'entendre possible.

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Quin és el meu navegador?

• Què es mostrava a la pantalla quan estaves bloquejat (pantalla en blanc? Part de la interfície del joc? Missatge d'error?)

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Quin és el meu navegador?

• Quina part de les regles no s'han respectat per l'adaptació de BGA

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• És visible la violació de les normes durant la repetició de la partida? Si es així, en quin número de moviment?

• Quin és el meu navegador?

• Quina va ser l'acció del joc que volies fer?

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Què intentes fer per dur a terme aquesta acció del joc?

• Què va passar quan ho vas intentar fer (missatge d'error, missatge de la barra d'estat de la partida, ...)?

• Quin és el meu navegador?

• A quina fase del joc va passar l'error (quina era la ordre en curs)?

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Què va passar quan vas intentar dur a terme l'acció del joc (missatge d'error, missatge de la barra d'estat del joc, ...)?

• Quin és el meu navegador?

• Si us plau, descriviu el problema de visualització. 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.

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Quin és el meu navegador?

• Si us plau, copieu/enganxeu el text mostrat en anglès en comptes del teu idioma. 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. És aquest text disponible al sistema de traducció? Si és així, ha sigut traduït fa més de 24 hores?

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Quin és el meu navegador?

• Si us plau, expliqueu el vostre suggeriment de manera precisa i concisa, per que sigui el més fàcil d'entendre possible.

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Quin és el meu navegador?