• Παρακαλούμε κάντε αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του μηνύματος που βλέπετε στην οθόνη σας, αν υπάρχει.

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• Παρακαλώ εξηγήστε τι θέλατε να κάνατε, τι κάνατε και τι συνέβη

approximately move # 197

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Παρακαλώ κάνε αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του κειμένου που απεικονίζεται στα αγγλικά αντί για αυτό που είναι στη γλώσσα σου.. Αν έχεις ένα screenshot αυτού του bug (καλή πρακτική), μπορείς να χρησιμοποιήσεις μια υπηρεσία φιλοξενίας εικόνων της επιλογής σου (για παράδειγμα snipboard.io) για να το ανεβάσεις και να αντιγράψεις/επικολλήσεις τον σύνδεσμο εδώ. είναι αυτό το κείμενο διαθέσιμο στο σύστημα μετάφρασης; Αν ναι, έχει μεταφραστεί για παραπάνω από 24 ώρες;

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Παρακάλώ εξηγήστε την πρότασή σας με ακρίβεια και περιεκτικότητα, ώστε να είναι όσο το δυνατόν πιο εύκολο να γίνει αντιληπτό τι εννοείτε.

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Τι εμφανιζόταν στην οθόνη όταν σταμάτησε (Κενή οθόνη; Μέρος του περιβάλλοντος του παιχνιδιού; Μήνυμα σφάλματος;)

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Ποιο μέρος των κανόνων δεν έγινε σεβαστό από την μετατροπή του παιχνιδιού για την BGA

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• Είναι η παραβίαση των κανόνων ορατή στην αναπαραγωγή του παιχνιδιού; Αν ναι, σε ποια κίνηση;

approximately move # 197

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Ποια ήταν η δράση του παιχνιδιού που ήθελες να κάνεις;

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• Τι προσπαθείτε να κάνετε για να ενεργοποιείσετε αυτήν την ενέργεια του παιχνιδιου;

approximately move # 197

• Τι συνέβη όταν προσπαθήσατε να το κάνετε αυτό (μνμ σφάλματος, μνμ στην μπάρα κατάστασης, ...);

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Σε ποια φάση του παιχνιδιού προέκυψε το πρόβλημα (ποιά ήταν η τρέχουσα οδηγία στο παιχνίδι);

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• Τι συνέβη όταν προσπαθήσατε να κάνετε κάποια ενέργεια στο παιχνίδι (μνμ σφάλματος, μνμ στην μπάρα κατάστασης, ...);

approximately move # 197

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Παρακαλούμε περιγράψτε το πρόβλημα απεικόνισης που έχετε. Αν έχεις ένα screenshot αυτού του bug (καλή πρακτική), μπορείς να χρησιμοποιήσεις μια υπηρεσία φιλοξενίας εικόνων της επιλογής σου (για παράδειγμα snipboard.io) για να το ανεβάσεις και να αντιγράψεις/επικολλήσεις τον σύνδεσμο εδώ.

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Παρακαλώ κάνε αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του κειμένου που απεικονίζεται στα αγγλικά αντί για αυτό που είναι στη γλώσσα σου.. Αν έχεις ένα screenshot αυτού του bug (καλή πρακτική), μπορείς να χρησιμοποιήσεις μια υπηρεσία φιλοξενίας εικόνων της επιλογής σου (για παράδειγμα snipboard.io) για να το ανεβάσεις και να αντιγράψεις/επικολλήσεις τον σύνδεσμο εδώ. είναι αυτό το κείμενο διαθέσιμο στο σύστημα μετάφρασης; Αν ναι, έχει μεταφραστεί για παραπάνω από 24 ώρες;

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;

• Παρακάλώ εξηγήστε την πρότασή σας με ακρίβεια και περιεκτικότητα, ώστε να είναι όσο το δυνατόν πιο εύκολο να γίνει αντιληπτό τι εννοείτε.

Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.

• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;