You didn't use Eridanus on move 73. You untapped it, allowing it to be used again, but never actually used it.

Report short description
"Google Chrome v114"
changed to
"Eradinus ability doesn't work when not activated"

> Are you serious?
I am. You may not believe, it been I spent some time looking at move 73 and everything around it.

> I left you so much detail.
You did. Thank you. That helps me narrow in on the right move.

> On move 73, I used Eridanus to mark a star on Hercules
Actually, that's not what happened
>> Move 73: Sigzy reactivates Eridanus
That's not a card use, that's you untapping the card. I saw that and thought to myself, "Sigzy spend some time putting a lot of information into this report. I should investigate further." So I did! Here's everything I tried:
1) I went back several turns, then I replayed it from your point of view performing the same actions.
2) I verified that Eridanus was untapped, rather than activated, on Move 73.
3) I looked at all the later moves to see if you used Eridanus earlier in the game (you didn't)
4) I then looked back through earlier moves to see if maybe you simply misstated the move number by a couple moves. Nope! The last use of Eridanus was way back on move 27. Certainly not the move indicated in the report.
5) I scratched my head for a while, then figured that the detailed you added simply didn't add up with what the game showed. "Probably a misreport," I figured. We get *several* of these every week and 95% come back and simply say they misread the log.

> It may show that I didn't use the ability because I chose not to after finding out wasn't allowing me to do what I wanted to do.
Nothing showed up on the undo log, either. I checked for that. Maybe call that step 6 in my reproduction?

So there I was with two bad options. What would you do?
A) Close the report after having investigated it because 95% of such reports turn out to be a simple misreading of the situation
B) Pour another hour into trying to figure out what could possibly have gone wrong. I've actually chosen this option before in the past several times. I've logged *several hours* chasing ghosts that turn out to be nothing.

Maybe you'll understand why I chose A. Maybe you won't. Either way, you've chosen hostility instead of friendliness and cooperation in trying to communicate here, which feels like a punch in the face for the time I've volunteered towards trying to help here. I'll remind you that I'm not a BGA employee, just a fellow fan. At this point, I'm not compensated in any way for assisting here, just volunteering time to make BGA a better place.

FWIW, here's the final solution.
> imgur.com/x0pvbSg
That's a great picture because it shows two stars that you expect to be connected, but they aren't actually connected. You've misread the situation (see option A again). Those two stars are not connected on the card. Yes, it's hard to tell. No, I didn't create the card. Yes, I would have made it more obvious if I'd designed the card.

Report short description
"Eradinus ability doesn't work when not activated"
changed to
"Stars appear to be connected on Hercules"

Hi, Sigzy. I appreciate your reply and the intent to work through things together. I apologize for the tone in my initial response. At the risk of ruining my apology with an explanation, we regularly receive a number of both false reports and hostile responses. I probably let it get to me more than I should.

Let's work through these points together.

> it sounds backhanded
I've updated the title to something that I hope sends a better message.

> Clearly my screenshots show me using Eridanus. But I never committed the move
That's the disconnect between us in your initial report. The report says you used him. You probably had the right move number, too. Because you never committed the move, you never actually used him. Consequently, the move never made it beyond what you saw locally in your browser and there was nothing for me to find when I investigated.

I realize that's probably frustrating to you that I didn't look closer. As I mentioned previously, false reports are such a frequent occurrence that I tend not to look beyond the initial facts of the report. I've wasted so many hours chasing things that weren't actually problems in the past that I've learning to just stop when things aren't adding up. Some of the kinder users even come back and report they had just made a mistake in filing the report. We had two of those in the past week, even. For that reason, frustrating or not, I'm not likely to pursue an issue beyond the initial set of facts, but as you've seen I do return when players provide additional information or clarify what they meant. There's got to be a back-and-forth, of course, just by the nature of this being a volunteer effort. (Or probably even if this were a full time position.)

> Anyways, just looking at that card and the fact that there is a line segment between
> those two stars means to me that they are connected.
I mentioned some of this in my previous response, so forgive me if I repeat myself a bit here. At a glance, they do appear to be connected. When you look closely at the card without the extra player stars on it, you'll see that there's no actual line there. There's a bit of starburst from the grand star that's very similar to a line, but it fades as it approaches the star you believe to be connected. I made the same mistake initially. A closer inspection reveals that they are not, in fact, connected.

> Which is confusing to me because of the visible line segment showing that there is a connection
Go back to your picture and zoom in real right on that loop you drew. Examine that "expected to be marked" star and you'll notice that the firm line to the left is different than the one on the right, which fades out before actually touching the star. I didn't design the card, so please don't shoot the messenger.