• Var vänlig klipp och klistra in felmeddelandet du ser på skärmen, om något.

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.

• Varsågod och förklara vad du ville göra, vad du gjorde och vad som hände

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Var vänlig kopiera/klistra in texten på engelska istället för ditt eget språk. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here. Är denna text tillgänglig i översättningssystemet? I så fall, var det mer än 24 timmar sedan den översattes?

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.

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Vänligen förklara ditt förslag exakt och koncist så att det är så enkelt som möjligt att förstå vad du menar.

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.

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Vad visades på skärmen när du blockerades (Blank skärm? Del av spelets användargränssnitt? Felmeddelande?)?

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.

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Vilken del av reglerna respekterades inte av BGA-adaptionen?

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.

• Är regelbrottet synligt i återuppspelning? Om ja, vilket nummer är det på draget?

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Vilken spelhandling ville du göra?

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.

• Vad försöker du göra för att sätta igång denna spelmekaniken?

• Vad hände när du försökte göra det här (felmeddelande, meddelande i spelstatusrad, ...)?

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• På vilket steg i spelet kom felet (vad var den aktuella instruktionen från spelet)?

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.

• Vad hände när du försökte utföra en spelhandling (felmeddelande, meddelande i spelstatusrad, ...)?

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Vänligen beskriv visningsproblemet. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here.

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.

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Var vänlig kopiera/klistra in texten på engelska istället för ditt eget språk. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here. Är denna text tillgänglig i översättningssystemet? I så fall, var det mer än 24 timmar sedan den översattes?

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.

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Vänligen förklara ditt förslag exakt och koncist så att det är så enkelt som möjligt att förstå vad du menar.

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.

• Vad har du för webbläsare?