• โปรดคัดลอก / วางข้อความแสดงข้อผิดพลาดที่คุณเห็นบนหน้าจอหากมี

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.

• โปรดอธิบายสิ่งที่คุณต้องการจะทำสิ่งที่คุณทำและสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้น

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

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

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.

• ข้อความนี้มีอยู่ใน ระบบการแปล หรือไม่? ถ้าใช่มันแปลมานานกว่า 24 ชั่วโมงแล้วหรือยัง?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดอธิบายข้อเสนอแนะของคุณอย่างแม่นยำและรัดกุมเพื่อให้ง่ายที่สุดที่จะเข้าใจสิ่งที่คุณหมายถึง

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.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• สิ่งที่ปรากฏบนหน้าจอเมื่อคุณถูกบล็อก (หน้าจอว่างเปล่าส่วนหนึ่งของอินเตอร์เฟซเกมข้อความผิดพลาด?)

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.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• ส่วนใดของกฎที่ไม่ได้รับความเคารพจากการปรับตัวด้วย BGA

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.

• การละเมิดกฎสามารถมองเห็นได้ในการเล่นซ้ำเกมหรือไม่ ถ้าใช่จะย้ายเบอร์ไหน

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• แอคชั่นเกมใดที่คุณอยากใช้งาน?

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.

• คุณพยายามทำอะไรเพื่อกระตุ้นการกระทำของเกมนี้?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• เกิดอะไรขึ้นเมื่อคุณพยายามทำสิ่งนี้ (ข้อความแสดงข้อผิดพลาดข้อความแถบสถานะของเกม ... )?

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• ปัญหาเกิดขึ้นที่ขั้นตอนใดของเกม (คำสั่งเกมปัจจุบันคืออะไร)

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.

• เกิดอะไรขึ้นเมื่อคุณพยายามทำการกระทำของเกม (ข้อความแสดงข้อผิดพลาดข้อความแถบสถานะเกม, ... )

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

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

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.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

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

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.

• ข้อความนี้มีอยู่ใน ระบบการแปล หรือไม่? ถ้าใช่มันแปลมานานกว่า 24 ชั่วโมงแล้วหรือยัง?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดอธิบายข้อเสนอแนะของคุณอย่างแม่นยำและรัดกุมเพื่อให้ง่ายที่สุดที่จะเข้าใจสิ่งที่คุณหมายถึง

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.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?