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.
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…
The white king is well within range of that bishop’s force barrage.
I never expected to see this combination!
