• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de foutboodschap die je op je scherm ziet, indien van toepassing.

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

• Leg uit wat je wilde doen, wat je deed en wat er gebeurde

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de tekst die in het Engels wordt getoond in plaats van in jouw taal. Als je een schermkopie van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je een hosting-service voor afbeeldingen naar keuze gebruiken (bijvoorbeeld snipboard.io) om deze te uploaden en de link hier te kopiëren/plakken. Is deze tekst beschikbaar in het vertaalsysteem? Zo ja, is deze meer dan 24 uur geleden vertaald?

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

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Gelieve jouw suggestie precies en beknopt uit te leggen zodat het zo makkelijk mogelijk is om te begrijpen wat je bedoelt.

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

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Wat stond op het scherm toen je geblokkeerd was (Leeg scherm? Een deel van de spelinterface? Foutboodschap?)

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

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Met welk onderdeel van de regels is geen rekening gehouden bij de BGA-versie?

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

• Is de inbreuk op de spelregels zichtbaar in de spelherhaling? Indien ja, bij welk zetnummer?

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Welke spelactie wilde je uitvoeren?

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

• Wat probeerde je te doen om deze spelactie te laten optreden?

• Wat gebeurde er toen je dit probeerde te doen (foutboodschap, melding op de statusbalk van het spel, ...)?

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• In welke fase van het spel deed het probleem zich voor (wat was de huidige spelinstructie)?

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

• Wat gebeurde toen je deze spelactie probeerde (foutboodschap, melding op de statusbalk van het spel, ...)?

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Beschrijf alsjeblieft het probleem met de beeldweergave. Als je een schermkopie van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je een hosting-service voor afbeeldingen naar keuze gebruiken (bijvoorbeeld snipboard.io) om deze te uploaden en de link hier te kopiëren/plakken.

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

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de tekst die in het Engels wordt getoond in plaats van in jouw taal. Als je een schermkopie van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je een hosting-service voor afbeeldingen naar keuze gebruiken (bijvoorbeeld snipboard.io) om deze te uploaden en de link hier te kopiëren/plakken. Is deze tekst beschikbaar in het vertaalsysteem? Zo ja, is deze meer dan 24 uur geleden vertaald?

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

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Gelieve jouw suggestie precies en beknopt uit te leggen zodat het zo makkelijk mogelijk is om te begrijpen wat je bedoelt.

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

• Welke browser gebruik je?