• โปรดคัดลอก / วางข้อความแสดงข้อผิดพลาดที่คุณเห็นบนหน้าจอหากมี

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• โปรดอธิบายสิ่งที่คุณต้องการจะทำสิ่งที่คุณทำและสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้น

See move 75/76.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดคัดลอก / วางข้อความที่แสดงเป็นภาษาอังกฤษแทนภาษาของคุณ 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. ข้อความนี้มีอยู่ใน ระบบการแปล หรือไม่? ถ้าใช่มันแปลมานานกว่า 24 ชั่วโมงแล้วหรือยัง?

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดอธิบายข้อเสนอแนะของคุณอย่างแม่นยำและรัดกุมเพื่อให้ง่ายที่สุดที่จะเข้าใจสิ่งที่คุณหมายถึง

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• สิ่งที่ปรากฏบนหน้าจอเมื่อคุณถูกบล็อก (หน้าจอว่างเปล่าส่วนหนึ่งของอินเตอร์เฟซเกมข้อความผิดพลาด?)

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• ส่วนใดของกฎที่ไม่ได้รับความเคารพจากการปรับตัวด้วย BGA

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• การละเมิดกฎสามารถมองเห็นได้ในการเล่นซ้ำเกมหรือไม่ ถ้าใช่จะย้ายเบอร์ไหน

See move 75/76.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• แอคชั่นเกมใดที่คุณอยากใช้งาน?

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• คุณพยายามทำอะไรเพื่อกระตุ้นการกระทำของเกมนี้?

See move 75/76.

• เกิดอะไรขึ้นเมื่อคุณพยายามทำสิ่งนี้ (ข้อความแสดงข้อผิดพลาดข้อความแถบสถานะของเกม ... )?

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• ปัญหาเกิดขึ้นที่ขั้นตอนใดของเกม (คำสั่งเกมปัจจุบันคืออะไร)

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• เกิดอะไรขึ้นเมื่อคุณพยายามทำการกระทำของเกม (ข้อความแสดงข้อผิดพลาดข้อความแถบสถานะเกม, ... )

See move 75/76.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดอธิบายปัญหาการแสดงผล 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.

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดคัดลอก / วางข้อความที่แสดงเป็นภาษาอังกฤษแทนภาษาของคุณ 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. ข้อความนี้มีอยู่ใน ระบบการแปล หรือไม่? ถ้าใช่มันแปลมานานกว่า 24 ชั่วโมงแล้วหรือยัง?

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดอธิบายข้อเสนอแนะของคุณอย่างแม่นยำและรัดกุมเพื่อให้ง่ายที่สุดที่จะเข้าใจสิ่งที่คุณหมายถึง

There is sort of a bug on "Urgent Wire Transfer." As written is says $1BB->2ECs, and as implemented its $2BB->1EC. However, this card is perhaps the most likely to be "OP" in the game, and so I am thinking it might make sense to tone it down, and perhaps your misreading of it was b/c 2-for-1 makes more sense than 1-for-2.

For the moment, can we try in the middle? 1BB->1EC? And I'll ask Rese to make a new version of the card with 1BB->1EC and also 2BB-> 1 EC so whichever way we end up deciding the card should go, you'll have the right art. (and then if we change it, I'll need an errata for the physical game, alas)


and I am kind of thinking the implementation is more balanced b/c it's more expensive.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?