• โปรดคัดลอก / วางข้อความแสดงข้อผิดพลาดที่คุณเห็นบนหน้าจอหากมี

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• โปรดอธิบายสิ่งที่คุณต้องการจะทำสิ่งที่คุณทำและสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้น

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดคัดลอก / วางข้อความที่แสดงเป็นภาษาอังกฤษแทนภาษาของคุณ หากคุณมีภาพหน้าจอของข้อบกพร่องนี้ (แนวปฏิบัติที่ดี) คุณสามารถใช้ Imgur.com เพื่ออัปโหลดและคัดลอก / วางลิงค์ที่นี่

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• ข้อความนี้มีอยู่ใน ระบบการแปล หรือไม่? ถ้าใช่มันแปลมานานกว่า 24 ชั่วโมงแล้วหรือยัง?

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดอธิบายข้อเสนอแนะของคุณอย่างแม่นยำและรัดกุมเพื่อให้ง่ายที่สุดที่จะเข้าใจสิ่งที่คุณหมายถึง

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• สิ่งที่ปรากฏบนหน้าจอเมื่อคุณถูกบล็อก (หน้าจอว่างเปล่าส่วนหนึ่งของอินเตอร์เฟซเกมข้อความผิดพลาด?)

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• ส่วนใดของกฎที่ไม่ได้รับความเคารพจากการปรับตัวด้วย BGA

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• การละเมิดกฎสามารถมองเห็นได้ในการเล่นซ้ำเกมหรือไม่ ถ้าใช่จะย้ายเบอร์ไหน

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• แอคชั่นเกมใดที่คุณอยากใช้งาน?

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• คุณพยายามทำอะไรเพื่อกระตุ้นการกระทำของเกมนี้?

• เกิดอะไรขึ้นเมื่อคุณพยายามทำสิ่งนี้ (ข้อความแสดงข้อผิดพลาดข้อความแถบสถานะของเกม ... )?

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• ปัญหาเกิดขึ้นที่ขั้นตอนใดของเกม (คำสั่งเกมปัจจุบันคืออะไร)

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• เกิดอะไรขึ้นเมื่อคุณพยายามทำการกระทำของเกม (ข้อความแสดงข้อผิดพลาดข้อความแถบสถานะเกม, ... )

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดอธิบายปัญหาการแสดงผล หากคุณมีภาพหน้าจอของข้อบกพร่องนี้ (แนวปฏิบัติที่ดี) คุณสามารถใช้ Imgur.com เพื่ออัปโหลดและคัดลอก / วางลิงค์ที่นี่

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดคัดลอก / วางข้อความที่แสดงเป็นภาษาอังกฤษแทนภาษาของคุณ หากคุณมีภาพหน้าจอของข้อบกพร่องนี้ (แนวปฏิบัติที่ดี) คุณสามารถใช้ Imgur.com เพื่ออัปโหลดและคัดลอก / วางลิงค์ที่นี่

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• ข้อความนี้มีอยู่ใน ระบบการแปล หรือไม่? ถ้าใช่มันแปลมานานกว่า 24 ชั่วโมงแล้วหรือยัง?

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดอธิบายข้อเสนอแนะของคุณอย่างแม่นยำและรัดกุมเพื่อให้ง่ายที่สุดที่จะเข้าใจสิ่งที่คุณหมายถึง

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?