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

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• 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

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Mar-plij, eilit/pegit an destenn e Saozneg ha n'eo ket en ho yezh. 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. Ha dibres eo an destenn-mañ er sistem treiñ? Ma ya, daoust ha troet eo bet ouzhpenn 24 eur 'zo ?

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• 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.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• 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 ?)

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

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

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

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

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

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

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

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

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• 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) ?

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

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

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Mar-plij, diskrivit kudenn an diskwel. 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.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Mar-plij, eilit/pegit an destenn e Saozneg ha n'eo ket en ho yezh. 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. Ha dibres eo an destenn-mañ er sistem treiñ? Ma ya, daoust ha troet eo bet ouzhpenn 24 eur 'zo ?

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• 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.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?