#79419: "Possible non-valid move was allowed by the system"
Petra a zo c'hoarvezet ? Trugarez evit dibab amañ dindan
Petra a zo c'hoarvezet ? Trugarez evit dibab amañ dindan
Gwiriit mar-plij ma n'eus ket dija un danevell evit an hevelep dodenn
M'oc'h a-du, VOTIT evit an danevell-mañ. An danevelloù gant ar muiañ a vouezhioù a vo studiet DA GENTAÑ !
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Deskrivadur dre ar munud
-
• Mar-plij, eilit/pegit ar gemennadenn fazi a zo war ho skramm, ma zo unan.
System allowed me to place a new pawn at position R5C3, even though it shouldn't be allowed according to the rules.
New pawns should be inserted from the edge of the board, potentially skipping EMPTY fields with a crop OR a field with my own pawns. But this move would require going through field R5C1, which was occupied by different player's pawn.
If I understand the rules correctly, I could move to R5C3 only with an existing pawn at R5C2, but not with a new pawn.
Maybe it is connected to the bug 75429? -
• 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
Yes, move 33 by me (Magicus)
• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?
Google Chrome v109
-
• 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 ?
System allowed me to place a new pawn at position R5C3, even though it shouldn't be allowed according to the rules.
New pawns should be inserted from the edge of the board, potentially skipping EMPTY fields with a crop OR a field with my own pawns. But this move would require going through field R5C1, which was occupied by different player's pawn.
If I understand the rules correctly, I could move to R5C3 only with an existing pawn at R5C2, but not with a new pawn.
Maybe it is connected to the bug 75429? • Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?
Google Chrome v109
-
• 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.
System allowed me to place a new pawn at position R5C3, even though it shouldn't be allowed according to the rules.
New pawns should be inserted from the edge of the board, potentially skipping EMPTY fields with a crop OR a field with my own pawns. But this move would require going through field R5C1, which was occupied by different player's pawn.
If I understand the rules correctly, I could move to R5C3 only with an existing pawn at R5C2, but not with a new pawn.
Maybe it is connected to the bug 75429? • Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?
Google Chrome v109
-
• Petra oa diskouezet war ar skramm pa 'z oc'h chomet stanket (Skramm goullo ? Ul lodenn eus etrefas ar c'hoari ? Kemennadenn fazi ?)
System allowed me to place a new pawn at position R5C3, even though it shouldn't be allowed according to the rules.
New pawns should be inserted from the edge of the board, potentially skipping EMPTY fields with a crop OR a field with my own pawns. But this move would require going through field R5C1, which was occupied by different player's pawn.
If I understand the rules correctly, I could move to R5C3 only with an existing pawn at R5C2, but not with a new pawn.
Maybe it is connected to the bug 75429? • Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?
Google Chrome v109
-
• Pesseurt reolenn n'eo ket doujet gant azasadenn ar c'hoari-mañ ?
System allowed me to place a new pawn at position R5C3, even though it shouldn't be allowed according to the rules.
New pawns should be inserted from the edge of the board, potentially skipping EMPTY fields with a crop OR a field with my own pawns. But this move would require going through field R5C1, which was occupied by different player's pawn.
If I understand the rules correctly, I could move to R5C3 only with an existing pawn at R5C2, but not with a new pawn.
Maybe it is connected to the bug 75429? -
• Ha posupl eo gwelet torridigezh ar reolenn e replay ar bartienn ? Ma 'z eo ya, da be niverenn taol ?
Yes, move 33 by me (Magicus)
• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?
Google Chrome v109
-
• Peseurt taol ho peus c'hoant c'hoari ?
System allowed me to place a new pawn at position R5C3, even though it shouldn't be allowed according to the rules.
New pawns should be inserted from the edge of the board, potentially skipping EMPTY fields with a crop OR a field with my own pawns. But this move would require going through field R5C1, which was occupied by different player's pawn.
If I understand the rules correctly, I could move to R5C3 only with an existing pawn at R5C2, but not with a new pawn.
Maybe it is connected to the bug 75429? -
• Petra emaoc'h o klask ober evit delankañ an ober c'hoari-mañ ?
Yes, move 33 by me (Magicus)
-
• What happened when you try to do this (error message, game status bar message, ...)?
• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?
Google Chrome v109
-
• Da be bazenn ar bartienn eo en em gavet ar gudenn (petra oa testenn kemenn ar c'hoari) ?
System allowed me to place a new pawn at position R5C3, even though it shouldn't be allowed according to the rules.
New pawns should be inserted from the edge of the board, potentially skipping EMPTY fields with a crop OR a field with my own pawns. But this move would require going through field R5C1, which was occupied by different player's pawn.
If I understand the rules correctly, I could move to R5C3 only with an existing pawn at R5C2, but not with a new pawn.
Maybe it is connected to the bug 75429? -
• What happened when you try to do a game action (error message, game status bar message, ...)?
Yes, move 33 by me (Magicus)
• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?
Google Chrome v109
-
• 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.
System allowed me to place a new pawn at position R5C3, even though it shouldn't be allowed according to the rules.
New pawns should be inserted from the edge of the board, potentially skipping EMPTY fields with a crop OR a field with my own pawns. But this move would require going through field R5C1, which was occupied by different player's pawn.
If I understand the rules correctly, I could move to R5C3 only with an existing pawn at R5C2, but not with a new pawn.
Maybe it is connected to the bug 75429? • Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?
Google Chrome v109
-
• 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 ?
System allowed me to place a new pawn at position R5C3, even though it shouldn't be allowed according to the rules.
New pawns should be inserted from the edge of the board, potentially skipping EMPTY fields with a crop OR a field with my own pawns. But this move would require going through field R5C1, which was occupied by different player's pawn.
If I understand the rules correctly, I could move to R5C3 only with an existing pawn at R5C2, but not with a new pawn.
Maybe it is connected to the bug 75429? • Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?
Google Chrome v109
-
• 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.
System allowed me to place a new pawn at position R5C3, even though it shouldn't be allowed according to the rules.
New pawns should be inserted from the edge of the board, potentially skipping EMPTY fields with a crop OR a field with my own pawns. But this move would require going through field R5C1, which was occupied by different player's pawn.
If I understand the rules correctly, I could move to R5C3 only with an existing pawn at R5C2, but not with a new pawn.
Maybe it is connected to the bug 75429? • Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?
Google Chrome v109
Roll-istor an danevelloù bog
Thanks for your repport :)
To be sure understand, we talk about adding a new pawn, from the pawns stack on the board and putting it on R5C3 ?
If yes, the move on R5C3 is allowed, as in your game, it's an empty square, a pawn from the stack can start directly on an empty square.
If not, can you give me a screenshot maybe and tag the exact square where you want to enter ?
Thanks !
At least as per the official rules:
"You can choose whether you move a Quechua meeple already on the board, or take one from
your personal supply to put into play (assuming you have any remaining).
If you bring a new one into play, the Quechua meeple begins its movement on any space
on the edge of the gameboard, as long as that space has no one else’s Quechua meeple in
it. The previous rules apply.
Your Quechua meeple cannot enter or traverse a space that has an opponent’s Quechua
meeple in it."
So even if a square (in my case R5C3) is reachable by my pawn inside the grid, that doesn't mean automatically, that I could also put on it a new pawn. It has to make its own way there from the edge of the grid, and there is no path available in this case (because square R5C1 is currently blocked by other player's pawn).
Could you please also check my Tiwanaku report on the forums?
boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=132536#p132536
Because I have tried also a few solo games, and either I have overlooked something in the rules, and my math is off, or the starting VP calculation is indeed buggy.
So I didn't know now, if I should make a bug report for this as well, or not.
Thank you!
And in the game linked the square R5C3 is totaly legit to get a new pawn on the board, as it is on the edge and is empty
Just to be sure, when you R5C3 you speak of the row 5 (from top to bottom) and the column 3 (from left to right) ?
Don't know, why the notation in the log is rotated, because technically it is 3rd row (from top to bottom), and 5th column (from left to right), so it would be much more understandable to be marked as R3C5 instead.
Just to be sure I am sending a link to the picture of the board, to be clear about which square we are talking about:
imgur.com/a/oA4kadM
And it is not mentioned in the log (maybe it would be good to have it there if technically possible?), but replay clearly shows, that it was a new pawn from outside the board, not an existing one moved to the new position.
About the Rows and Cols, yeah I tought it was corrected but it wasn't, it will be in the next update, thanks !
Can you and the other players quit the game so I can see the move at the exact moment the problem is supposed to happen ?
Thanks!
Because I think this is potentially a very serious bug, making the game much easier, than it should be.
It is also pretty replicable in many situations, where you have some pawns still outside the board.
For example it happened again in my recent game - system showed me 30 fields, where I can explore with a new pawn, but 7 of them were marked incorrectly:
imgur.com/a/fnzR3SH
And I have triple-checked the official rules in the meantime, but there really isn't mentioned any option to drop a new pawn directly to fields, which are accessible only by your existing pawn inside the board.
Thanks!
imgur.com/a/XudKa5Y
Yeah I saw the incorrect movement :)
It's now fixed
Thanks again for your repport ! :D
Ouzhpennañ un dra bennak d'an danevell-mañ
- Niverenn taol all / Niverenn ar fiñv
- Ha renket eo bet ar gudenn gant an douchenn F5 ?
- Ha c'hoarvezet eo ar gudenn meur a wech ? Bewech ? Cheñch-dicheñch ?
- 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.
