• Mar-plij, eilit/pegit ar gemennadenn fazi a zo war ho skramm, ma zo unan.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Displegit deomp, mar-plij, ar pezh ho poa c'hoant d'ober, ar pezh ho peus graet hag ar pezh a zo c'hoarvezet 'benn ar fin

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Mar-plij, eilit/pegit an destenn e Saozneg ha n'eo ket en ho yezh. M'ho peus un dapadenn skramm eus ar gudenn (ho pezit soñj d'eus se !), gellout a rit implij Imgur.com evit e bellgargañ hag eilañ/pegañ al liamm amañ.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Ha dibres eo an destenn-mañ er sistem treiñ? Ma ya, daoust ha troet eo bet ouzhpenn 24 eur 'zo ?

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Displegit ho kinnig mar-plij, e berrgomzoù met en un doare resis, evit ma vefe an aesañ posupl kompren mat ar pezh ho peus c'hoant lâret.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Petra oa diskouezet war ar skramm pa 'z oc'h chomet stanket (Skramm goullo ? Ul lodenn eus etrefas ar c'hoari ? Kemennadenn fazi ?)

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Pesseurt reolenn n'eo ket doujet gant azasadenn ar c'hoari-mañ ?

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Ha posupl eo gwelet torridigezh ar reolenn e replay ar bartienn ? Ma 'z eo ya, da be niverenn taol ?

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Peseurt taol ho peus c'hoant c'hoari ?

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Petra emaoc'h o klask ober evit delankañ an ober c'hoari-mañ ?

• What happened when you try to do this (error message, game status bar message, ...)?

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Da be bazenn ar bartienn eo en em gavet ar gudenn (petra oa testenn kemenn ar c'hoari) ?

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• What happened when you try to do a game action (error message, game status bar message, ...)?

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Mar-plij, diskrivit kudenn an diskwel. M'ho peus un dapadenn skramm eus ar gudenn (ho pezit soñj d'eus se !), gellout a rit implij Imgur.com evit e bellgargañ hag eilañ/pegañ al liamm amañ.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Mar-plij, eilit/pegit an destenn e Saozneg ha n'eo ket en ho yezh. M'ho peus un dapadenn skramm eus ar gudenn (ho pezit soñj d'eus se !), gellout a rit implij Imgur.com evit e bellgargañ hag eilañ/pegañ al liamm amañ.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Ha dibres eo an destenn-mañ er sistem treiñ? Ma ya, daoust ha troet eo bet ouzhpenn 24 eur 'zo ?

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Displegit ho kinnig mar-plij, e berrgomzoù met en un doare resis, evit ma vefe an aesañ posupl kompren mat ar pezh ho peus c'hoant lâret.

now the base number of wounds is 2, although the rules specify 3, and 2 and 1 are faster versions of the game, but they are not presented as the main ones.

I found some important arguments for this:
1) there is a very real situation where you can inflict 2 wounds right in the first round. it is enough to win a line with Bastet against Apofis. Moreover, this is not some kind of exceptional situation, but a completely normal game situation, even if both players play quite well. and losing in the 1st round is not very cool for me.
2) a player who even won 2 lines on first round most likely did not cause wounds. his opponent could win the first line by giving away the other two. if he wins it again with Bastet, then according to the rules he will be the winner of the game, because the sequence of locations matters.

The conclusion is as follows: changing the number of wounds from 3 to 2 significantly increases the randomness of the game, and also, even worse, increases the value of the Bastet card primarily for the lagging player, because it immediately brings victory on a controlled line.

I understand that this may not seem like such big disadvantages to you, compared to the changed balance. It seems to me that the author of the game deduced the basic rule about 3 wounds purposefully and built the entire balance of cards in the first place with this in mind.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?