• Per favore copia/incolla il messaggio di errore visualizzato sullo schermo, se possibile.

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.

• Per favore spiega cosa avresti voluto fare, cosa hai fatto e cosa è successo

• Qual è il tuo browser?

• Per favore copia/incolla il testo visualizzato in inglese invece che nella tua lingua. Se hai una schermata di questo errore (cosa buona e giusta), puoi usare Imgur.com per caricarla e fare copia/incolla del link qui.

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.

• Questo testo è disponibile nel sistema di traduzione? Se sì, è stato tradotto nell'arco di più di 24 ore?

• Qual è il tuo browser?

• Spiega il tuo suggerimento in modo preciso e conciso in modo che sia il più semplice possibile per capire cosa intendi.

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 è il tuo browser?

• Cosa era mostrato sullo schermo quando sei rimasto bloccato (schermo bianco? interfaccia di gioco parziale? messaggio di errore?)

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 è il tuo browser?

• Quale parte delle regole non è stata rispettata dall'adattamento 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.

• La violazione delle regole è visibile nel replay della partita? Se sì, a che numero di mossa?

• Qual è il tuo browser?

• Qual era l'azione di gioco che volevi fare?

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.

• Cosa stai provando a fare per attivare questa azione di gioco?

• Cosa è successo quando hai provato a fare questo (messaggio di errore, messaggio nella barra di stato del gioco...)?

• Qual è il tuo browser?

• In quale fase del gioco si è verificato il problema (qual era l'istruzione della partita in corso)?

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.

• Cosa è successo quando hai provato a fare questa azione di gioco (messaggio di errore, messaggio nella barra di stato del gioco...)?

• Qual è il tuo browser?

• Per favore descrivi il problema rilevato. Se hai una schermata di questo errore (cosa buona e giusta), puoi usare Imgur.com per caricarla e fare copia/incolla del link qui.

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 è il tuo browser?

• Per favore copia/incolla il testo visualizzato in inglese invece che nella tua lingua. Se hai una schermata di questo errore (cosa buona e giusta), puoi usare Imgur.com per caricarla e fare copia/incolla del link qui.

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.

• Questo testo è disponibile nel sistema di traduzione? Se sì, è stato tradotto nell'arco di più di 24 ore?

• Qual è il tuo browser?

• Spiega il tuo suggerimento in modo preciso e conciso in modo che sia il più semplice possibile per capire cosa intendi.

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 è il tuo browser?