• Por favor, copia/pega el mensaje de error que ves en tu pantalla, si hay alguno.

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• Por favor, explica lo que querías hacer, lo que hiciste y lo que pasó

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• Por favor, copia/pega el texto mostrado en inglés en lugar de en tu idioma. Si tienes una captura de pantalla de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar un servicio de hospedaje de imágenes a tu elección (snipboard.io, por ejemplo) para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí. ¿Está este texto disponible en el sistema de traducción? Si es así, ¿ha sido traducido hace más de 24 horas?

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• Por favor explica tu sugerencia de manera precisa y concisa para que sea lo más fácil posible entender lo que quieres decir.

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• ¿Qué había en la pantalla cuando se quedó bloqueado? (¿mensaje de error?, ¿pantalla en blanco?, ¿una parte de la interfaz del juego?)

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• ¿Qué parte de las reglas no se ha respetado en la adaptación de BGA?

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• ¿La infracción de las reglas es visible en la repetición de la partida? Si es así, ¿en qué jugada?

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• ¿Qué acción de juego querías realizar?

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• ¿Qué es lo que trataste de hacer para activar esta acción del juego?

• ¿Qué sucedió cuando lo hiciste (el mensaje de error, mensaje en la barra de estado del juego, ...)?

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• ¿En qué etapa de la partida ocurrió el problema? ¿Cuál era la instrucción actual del juego?

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• ¿Qué sucedió cuando trataste de hacer una acción de juego (mensaje de error, mensaje en la barra de estado del juego, ...)?

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• Por favor, describe el problema de visualización. Si tienes una captura de pantalla de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar un servicio de hospedaje de imágenes a tu elección (snipboard.io, por ejemplo) para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí.

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• Por favor, copia/pega el texto mostrado en inglés en lugar de en tu idioma. Si tienes una captura de pantalla de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar un servicio de hospedaje de imágenes a tu elección (snipboard.io, por ejemplo) para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí. ¿Está este texto disponible en el sistema de traducción? Si es así, ¿ha sido traducido hace más de 24 horas?

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• Por favor explica tu sugerencia de manera precisa y concisa para que sea lo más fácil posible entender lo que quieres decir.

So the subject above is a bit awkwardly phrased due to BGA's character limitations, but here's the idea in full:

When moving an expedition member, I can move it multiple tiles before confirming the entire move—great!

But I notice that if I move it to a tile that I'd previously come from, the interface treats it like a new move... hmm. This is technically legal, but I suggest that a more practical usage would be to have the move treated as /undoing/ the movement to the current tile.

Here's an example: if my member starts on tile A, and I click B > C > D > C, instead of spending all the points to move from A > B > C > D > C as currently happens, the player would be better served by having the interface just spend the points for A > B > C.

I posit that players it would be /exceedingly/ rare for any player to overspend points, but allowing this "contained" undo would be a much more likely, and therefore helpful, case. And in the rare case that a player wants to do A > B > C > D > C, that player could do that in two separate moves: A > B > C > D, then D > C, confirming after both (and the double confirmation will act as a guard against unintentionally overspending on inefficient moves).

Again, any "undoing" is to happen before the move is confirmed, so hopefully this "localized" undo functionality won't have the major cost that you mentioned in boardgamearena.com/bug?id=117454

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?