En passant is forced.
En Passant should be a reaction.
This board is too narrow
If this post gets two upvotes…
I actually really like this as an idea. Has someone made a chess variant with PF2e-style action economy before?
Personally I feel like any capturing move would be 2 actions, as would castling. Any other move is 1 action. Maybe capturing with king would be 1 action.
I’m not sure how it would actually play out, but it could be interesting.
Well the saying goes “if you aim for the king, you best not miss”. I think going for check or checkmate should be 3 actions, same with capturing with king. Mostly because the king would likely be in check in most situations where the king can capture
Oh yeah, I like that.
I’d say it should do away with checkmate and use a Drawback Chess–style system where you win by capturing the king. This would cost 3 actions. I think merely moving into check could cost 2.
My original idea was that capturing with king would cost less than a normal capture because I wanted to buff the king’s ability to protect himself, and in particular I was worried about strategies that could force the opponent to spend 2 actions capturing your piece with their king. But making moving into check cost 2 actions and capturing the king cost 3 would completely negate the need for that.
Moving into check with a capture would, obviously, cost 3 actions (1 for move, 1 extra for capturing, 1 extra for the check). And discovered checks would also cost 2 actions, with discovered check via a capture costing 3.
It would make sense not to have discovered check cost extra, which would encourage that kind of strategizing.
The white king is well within range of that bishop’s force barrage.
I like the implication that I could move 3 pawns in a turn.
-5 and -10 for the second and third move. Better think about those chances - you could be flanking instead…
I never expected to see this combination!
