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

Currently the available victory conditions are either 2 hands or the points system. I think offering 1 hand as an option would be good because it would make for a MUCH shorter game (and the game length would be lower variance). For example, I just played a 4-player 2-hands game which took 4 hands total, i.e. 2 hours. If we'd been unlucky, it could have been 5 hands (2.5 hours); it also could have been over in 2 hands (1 hour). This is both longer than I wanted to play, and also way higher variance (even if I'm ok with 1-2 hours, the *potential* of a 2.5hr game may prevent me from ever playing again even if it doesn't happen often).

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

• 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.

Currently the available victory conditions are either 2 hands or the points system. I think offering 1 hand as an option would be good because it would make for a MUCH shorter game (and the game length would be lower variance). For example, I just played a 4-player 2-hands game which took 4 hands total, i.e. 2 hours. If we'd been unlucky, it could have been 5 hands (2.5 hours); it also could have been over in 2 hands (1 hour). This is both longer than I wanted to play, and also way higher variance (even if I'm ok with 1-2 hours, the *potential* of a 2.5hr game may prevent me from ever playing again even if it doesn't happen often).

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

• ما هو متصفحك؟

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

Currently the available victory conditions are either 2 hands or the points system. I think offering 1 hand as an option would be good because it would make for a MUCH shorter game (and the game length would be lower variance). For example, I just played a 4-player 2-hands game which took 4 hands total, i.e. 2 hours. If we'd been unlucky, it could have been 5 hands (2.5 hours); it also could have been over in 2 hands (1 hour). This is both longer than I wanted to play, and also way higher variance (even if I'm ok with 1-2 hours, the *potential* of a 2.5hr game may prevent me from ever playing again even if it doesn't happen often).

• ما هو متصفحك؟

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

Currently the available victory conditions are either 2 hands or the points system. I think offering 1 hand as an option would be good because it would make for a MUCH shorter game (and the game length would be lower variance). For example, I just played a 4-player 2-hands game which took 4 hands total, i.e. 2 hours. If we'd been unlucky, it could have been 5 hands (2.5 hours); it also could have been over in 2 hands (1 hour). This is both longer than I wanted to play, and also way higher variance (even if I'm ok with 1-2 hours, the *potential* of a 2.5hr game may prevent me from ever playing again even if it doesn't happen often).

• ما هو متصفحك؟

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

Currently the available victory conditions are either 2 hands or the points system. I think offering 1 hand as an option would be good because it would make for a MUCH shorter game (and the game length would be lower variance). For example, I just played a 4-player 2-hands game which took 4 hands total, i.e. 2 hours. If we'd been unlucky, it could have been 5 hands (2.5 hours); it also could have been over in 2 hands (1 hour). This is both longer than I wanted to play, and also way higher variance (even if I'm ok with 1-2 hours, the *potential* of a 2.5hr game may prevent me from ever playing again even if it doesn't happen often).

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

• ما هو متصفحك؟

• ما هو نشاط اللعبة الذي أردت القيام به؟

Currently the available victory conditions are either 2 hands or the points system. I think offering 1 hand as an option would be good because it would make for a MUCH shorter game (and the game length would be lower variance). For example, I just played a 4-player 2-hands game which took 4 hands total, i.e. 2 hours. If we'd been unlucky, it could have been 5 hands (2.5 hours); it also could have been over in 2 hands (1 hour). This is both longer than I wanted to play, and also way higher variance (even if I'm ok with 1-2 hours, the *potential* of a 2.5hr game may prevent me from ever playing again even if it doesn't happen often).

• ماذا تحاول أن تفعل لتحريك هذا العمل اللعبة؟

• 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)؟

Currently the available victory conditions are either 2 hands or the points system. I think offering 1 hand as an option would be good because it would make for a MUCH shorter game (and the game length would be lower variance). For example, I just played a 4-player 2-hands game which took 4 hands total, i.e. 2 hours. If we'd been unlucky, it could have been 5 hands (2.5 hours); it also could have been over in 2 hands (1 hour). This is both longer than I wanted to play, and also way higher variance (even if I'm ok with 1-2 hours, the *potential* of a 2.5hr game may prevent me from ever playing again even if it doesn't happen often).

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

• 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.

Currently the available victory conditions are either 2 hands or the points system. I think offering 1 hand as an option would be good because it would make for a MUCH shorter game (and the game length would be lower variance). For example, I just played a 4-player 2-hands game which took 4 hands total, i.e. 2 hours. If we'd been unlucky, it could have been 5 hands (2.5 hours); it also could have been over in 2 hands (1 hour). This is both longer than I wanted to play, and also way higher variance (even if I'm ok with 1-2 hours, the *potential* of a 2.5hr game may prevent me from ever playing again even if it doesn't happen often).

• 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.

Currently the available victory conditions are either 2 hands or the points system. I think offering 1 hand as an option would be good because it would make for a MUCH shorter game (and the game length would be lower variance). For example, I just played a 4-player 2-hands game which took 4 hands total, i.e. 2 hours. If we'd been unlucky, it could have been 5 hands (2.5 hours); it also could have been over in 2 hands (1 hour). This is both longer than I wanted to play, and also way higher variance (even if I'm ok with 1-2 hours, the *potential* of a 2.5hr game may prevent me from ever playing again even if it doesn't happen often).

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

• ما هو متصفحك؟

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

Currently the available victory conditions are either 2 hands or the points system. I think offering 1 hand as an option would be good because it would make for a MUCH shorter game (and the game length would be lower variance). For example, I just played a 4-player 2-hands game which took 4 hands total, i.e. 2 hours. If we'd been unlucky, it could have been 5 hands (2.5 hours); it also could have been over in 2 hands (1 hour). This is both longer than I wanted to play, and also way higher variance (even if I'm ok with 1-2 hours, the *potential* of a 2.5hr game may prevent me from ever playing again even if it doesn't happen often).

• ما هو متصفحك؟