• โปรดคัดลอก / วางข้อความแสดงข้อผิดพลาดที่คุณเห็นบนหน้าจอหากมี

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• โปรดอธิบายสิ่งที่คุณต้องการจะทำสิ่งที่คุณทำและสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้น

approximately move # 197

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดคัดลอก / วางข้อความที่แสดงเป็นภาษาอังกฤษแทนภาษาของคุณ ถ้าคุณมีภาพที่ติดปัญหาบัค คุณสามารถใช้เว็บฝากรูปภาพใดก็ได้ (snipboard.io for example) เพื่ออัพโหลดรูปภาพนั้น จากนั้นนำลิงค์ภาพมาวางที่นี่ ข้อความนี้มีอยู่ใน ระบบการแปล หรือไม่? ถ้าใช่มันแปลมานานกว่า 24 ชั่วโมงแล้วหรือยัง?

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดอธิบายข้อเสนอแนะของคุณอย่างแม่นยำและรัดกุมเพื่อให้ง่ายที่สุดที่จะเข้าใจสิ่งที่คุณหมายถึง

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• สิ่งที่ปรากฏบนหน้าจอเมื่อคุณถูกบล็อก (หน้าจอว่างเปล่าส่วนหนึ่งของอินเตอร์เฟซเกมข้อความผิดพลาด?)

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• ส่วนใดของกฎที่ไม่ได้รับความเคารพจากการปรับตัวด้วย BGA

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• การละเมิดกฎสามารถมองเห็นได้ในการเล่นซ้ำเกมหรือไม่ ถ้าใช่จะย้ายเบอร์ไหน

approximately move # 197

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• แอคชั่นเกมใดที่คุณอยากใช้งาน?

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• คุณพยายามทำอะไรเพื่อกระตุ้นการกระทำของเกมนี้?

approximately move # 197

• เกิดอะไรขึ้นเมื่อคุณพยายามทำสิ่งนี้ (ข้อความแสดงข้อผิดพลาดข้อความแถบสถานะของเกม ... )?

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• ปัญหาเกิดขึ้นที่ขั้นตอนใดของเกม (คำสั่งเกมปัจจุบันคืออะไร)

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• เกิดอะไรขึ้นเมื่อคุณพยายามทำการกระทำของเกม (ข้อความแสดงข้อผิดพลาดข้อความแถบสถานะเกม, ... )

approximately move # 197

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดอธิบายปัญหาการแสดงผล ถ้าคุณมีภาพที่ติดปัญหาบัค คุณสามารถใช้เว็บฝากรูปภาพใดก็ได้ (snipboard.io for example) เพื่ออัพโหลดรูปภาพนั้น จากนั้นนำลิงค์ภาพมาวางที่นี่

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดคัดลอก / วางข้อความที่แสดงเป็นภาษาอังกฤษแทนภาษาของคุณ ถ้าคุณมีภาพที่ติดปัญหาบัค คุณสามารถใช้เว็บฝากรูปภาพใดก็ได้ (snipboard.io for example) เพื่ออัพโหลดรูปภาพนั้น จากนั้นนำลิงค์ภาพมาวางที่นี่ ข้อความนี้มีอยู่ใน ระบบการแปล หรือไม่? ถ้าใช่มันแปลมานานกว่า 24 ชั่วโมงแล้วหรือยัง?

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?

• โปรดอธิบายข้อเสนอแนะของคุณอย่างแม่นยำและรัดกุมเพื่อให้ง่ายที่สุดที่จะเข้าใจสิ่งที่คุณหมายถึง

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• คุณใช้เบราว์เซอร์อะไร?