• يرجى نسخ / لصق رسالة الخطأ التي تراها على الشاشة ، إن وجدت.

Move 114 (and almost every other skirmish before that) was 4 to 3, but the game stated there was "no clear winner" and shuffled the contested resource into the junkyard. Other skirmishes also were called "no clear winner" even though the number of people involved weren't the same.

The ONLY skirmishes where the game didn't call it a tie were ones where one player had a strength of 0.

This contradicts page 8 of the rules "Then the total remaining fight values are summed and the player with the highest fight value wins...In the event of a tie, each player sums the number of people involved in the skirmish"

• يرجى توضيح ما تريد القيام به ، ماذا فعلت وما حدث

114

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• يرجى نسخ / لصق النص المعروض باللغة الإنجليزية بدلاً من لغتك. إذا كان لديك لقطة شاشة لهذا الخطأ (ممارسة جيدة) ، يمكنك استخدام Imgur.com لتحميله ونسخ / لصق الرابط هنا.

Move 114 (and almost every other skirmish before that) was 4 to 3, but the game stated there was "no clear winner" and shuffled the contested resource into the junkyard. Other skirmishes also were called "no clear winner" even though the number of people involved weren't the same.

The ONLY skirmishes where the game didn't call it a tie were ones where one player had a strength of 0.

This contradicts page 8 of the rules "Then the total remaining fight values are summed and the player with the highest fight value wins...In the event of a tie, each player sums the number of people involved in the skirmish"

• هل هذا النص متاح في translation system ؟ إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم ، فهل تمت ترجمتها لأكثر من 24 ساعة؟

114

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• يرجى توضيح اقتراحك بدقة وإيجاز بحيث يكون من السهل قدر الإمكان فهم ما تعنيه.

Move 114 (and almost every other skirmish before that) was 4 to 3, but the game stated there was "no clear winner" and shuffled the contested resource into the junkyard. Other skirmishes also were called "no clear winner" even though the number of people involved weren't the same.

The ONLY skirmishes where the game didn't call it a tie were ones where one player had a strength of 0.

This contradicts page 8 of the rules "Then the total remaining fight values are summed and the player with the highest fight value wins...In the event of a tie, each player sums the number of people involved in the skirmish"

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• ما الذي تم عرضه على الشاشة عندما تم حظرك (شاشة فارغة؟ جزء من واجهة اللعبة؟ رسالة خطأ؟)

Move 114 (and almost every other skirmish before that) was 4 to 3, but the game stated there was "no clear winner" and shuffled the contested resource into the junkyard. Other skirmishes also were called "no clear winner" even though the number of people involved weren't the same.

The ONLY skirmishes where the game didn't call it a tie were ones where one player had a strength of 0.

This contradicts page 8 of the rules "Then the total remaining fight values are summed and the player with the highest fight value wins...In the event of a tie, each player sums the number of people involved in the skirmish"

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• أي جزء من القواعد تم مخالفته في تصميم التبني لدى BGA

Move 114 (and almost every other skirmish before that) was 4 to 3, but the game stated there was "no clear winner" and shuffled the contested resource into the junkyard. Other skirmishes also were called "no clear winner" even though the number of people involved weren't the same.

The ONLY skirmishes where the game didn't call it a tie were ones where one player had a strength of 0.

This contradicts page 8 of the rules "Then the total remaining fight values are summed and the player with the highest fight value wins...In the event of a tie, each player sums the number of people involved in the skirmish"

• هل انتهاك القواعد مرئي عند إعادة اللعب؟ إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم ، فبأي رقم؟

114

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• ما هو نشاط اللعبة الذي أردت القيام به؟

Move 114 (and almost every other skirmish before that) was 4 to 3, but the game stated there was "no clear winner" and shuffled the contested resource into the junkyard. Other skirmishes also were called "no clear winner" even though the number of people involved weren't the same.

The ONLY skirmishes where the game didn't call it a tie were ones where one player had a strength of 0.

This contradicts page 8 of the rules "Then the total remaining fight values are summed and the player with the highest fight value wins...In the event of a tie, each player sums the number of people involved in the skirmish"

• ماذا تحاول أن تفعل لتحريك هذا العمل اللعبة؟

114

• ماذا حدث عند محاولة القيام بهذا (رسالة خطأ ، رسالة شريط حالة اللعبة ، ...)؟

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• في أي خطوة من اللعبة حدثت المشكلة (ما هو تعليمة اللعبة الحالية)؟

Move 114 (and almost every other skirmish before that) was 4 to 3, but the game stated there was "no clear winner" and shuffled the contested resource into the junkyard. Other skirmishes also were called "no clear winner" even though the number of people involved weren't the same.

The ONLY skirmishes where the game didn't call it a tie were ones where one player had a strength of 0.

This contradicts page 8 of the rules "Then the total remaining fight values are summed and the player with the highest fight value wins...In the event of a tie, each player sums the number of people involved in the skirmish"

• ماذا حدث عند محاولة إجراء هذه الحركة داخل اللعبة (رسالة خطأ ، رسالة شريط حالة اللعبة ، ...)؟

114

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• يرجى وصف مشكلة العرض. إذا كان لديك لقطة شاشة لهذا الخطأ (ممارسة جيدة) ، يمكنك استخدام Imgur.com لتحميله ونسخ / لصق الرابط هنا.

Move 114 (and almost every other skirmish before that) was 4 to 3, but the game stated there was "no clear winner" and shuffled the contested resource into the junkyard. Other skirmishes also were called "no clear winner" even though the number of people involved weren't the same.

The ONLY skirmishes where the game didn't call it a tie were ones where one player had a strength of 0.

This contradicts page 8 of the rules "Then the total remaining fight values are summed and the player with the highest fight value wins...In the event of a tie, each player sums the number of people involved in the skirmish"

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• يرجى نسخ / لصق النص المعروض باللغة الإنجليزية بدلاً من لغتك. إذا كان لديك لقطة شاشة لهذا الخطأ (ممارسة جيدة) ، يمكنك استخدام Imgur.com لتحميله ونسخ / لصق الرابط هنا.

Move 114 (and almost every other skirmish before that) was 4 to 3, but the game stated there was "no clear winner" and shuffled the contested resource into the junkyard. Other skirmishes also were called "no clear winner" even though the number of people involved weren't the same.

The ONLY skirmishes where the game didn't call it a tie were ones where one player had a strength of 0.

This contradicts page 8 of the rules "Then the total remaining fight values are summed and the player with the highest fight value wins...In the event of a tie, each player sums the number of people involved in the skirmish"

• هل هذا النص متاح في translation system ؟ إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم ، فهل تمت ترجمتها لأكثر من 24 ساعة؟

114

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• يرجى توضيح اقتراحك بدقة وإيجاز بحيث يكون من السهل قدر الإمكان فهم ما تعنيه.

Move 114 (and almost every other skirmish before that) was 4 to 3, but the game stated there was "no clear winner" and shuffled the contested resource into the junkyard. Other skirmishes also were called "no clear winner" even though the number of people involved weren't the same.

The ONLY skirmishes where the game didn't call it a tie were ones where one player had a strength of 0.

This contradicts page 8 of the rules "Then the total remaining fight values are summed and the player with the highest fight value wins...In the event of a tie, each player sums the number of people involved in the skirmish"

• ما هو متصفحك؟