• Por favor copie e cole a mensagem de erro que aparece na tela, se possível.

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• Por favor explique o que queria fazer, o que fez e o que aconteceu

• Qual navegador você está usando?

• Por favor copie/cole o texto em inglês em vez de sua língua. Se tiver uma captura de ecrã/tela deste problema (boa prática), pode usar Imgur.com para carregá-la e copiar/colar o endereço aqui.

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• Este texto está disponível no sistema de traduções? Se sim, foi traduzido há mais de 24 horas?

• Qual navegador você está usando?

• Por favor, explique sua sugestão precisamente e de forma concisa, de forma que fique o mais fácil possível, entender o que você quer dizer.

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• Qual navegador você está usando?

• O que estava presente na tela quando você estava bloqueado (tela em branco? Parte da imagem do jogo? Mensagem de erro?)

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• Qual navegador você está usando?

• Que parte das regras não foi respeitada pela adaptação do BGA?

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• A violação de regras está visível na revisão do jogo? Se sim, em que número de jogada?

• Qual navegador você está usando?

• Qual era a ação de jogo que queria fazer?

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• O que você tentou fazer para provocar esta ação de jogo?

• O que aconteceu quando tentou fazer isto(mensagem de erro, mensagem na barra de estado do jogo)?

• Qual navegador você está usando?

• Em que passo do jogo ocorre o problema(qual era a instrução corrente do jogo)?

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• O que aconteceu quando tentou fazer essa ação de jogo (mensagem de erro, mensagem na barra de estado do jogo)?

• Qual navegador você está usando?

• Por favor descreva o problema de visualização. Se tiver uma captura de ecrã/tela deste problema (boa prática), pode usar Imgur.com para carregá-la e copiar/colar o endereço aqui.

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• Qual navegador você está usando?

• Por favor copie/cole o texto em inglês em vez de sua língua. Se tiver uma captura de ecrã/tela deste problema (boa prática), pode usar Imgur.com para carregá-la e copiar/colar o endereço aqui.

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• Este texto está disponível no sistema de traduções? Se sim, foi traduzido há mais de 24 horas?

• Qual navegador você está usando?

• Por favor, explique sua sugestão precisamente e de forma concisa, de forma que fique o mais fácil possível, entender o que você quer dizer.

Newly played tree cards are normally added at the end of the row of your trees. But if the new tree is the same species you already played, it is inserted into the row, grouping trees of the same species together.

It took me several games to figure out this exception rule, and I still find it confusing at times. I definitely lost some opportunities because of it. For example, when trying to optimize my forest to get 5 points per fully occupied tree for Beech Marten, I thought: "Didn't I have a tree almost occupied? No, I can't see it, so I didn't." Whereas in fact the tree almost occupied existed and just "jumped" unnoticed into the second row, now covered by my cards in hand.

So I think adding trees at the end of the row should be the default rule, with the option to switch to grouping tree species (which is also useful in some cases) and back to playing order.

• Qual navegador você está usando?