It's definitely the part of the game that is most awkward to explain when one is advertising the game though. But I'm not sure yet if this is good or bad overall. They add some luck to the game, and they make initiating trades (especially pawn trades) better than waiting for your opponent to initiate. So I guess the addition that Im not sure about is indeed the stones. I think all the armies are really interesting and the midline invasion rule is great. It seems like you don't like the two armies which do well against yours :). Reaper also can't afford to trade, and empowered can protect things well from the reaper queen. I could see them being good against reaper though. I don't think I've lost a game to empowered. I dunno, maybe there's some brilliant way of playing this army, but I haven't seen it yet. So if they sit there and play defense, then their opponent can just go for trades, and if they attack, then they will typically not get any bonuses, and they have no queen. They lose if they trade pieces, yet their pieces generally lose their special abilities when they attack (because they will separate). Weird, I've been thinking of the empowered army as the weakest army in the game, and I'm not really sure what they're supposed to be doing. Probably a wierd complaint for a Reaper player, but those are just some thoughts of mine. The Empowered Army critique is even less sophisticated: it just feels like too much! I'm sure this is more of a quirk on my part, but the Empowered Army feels overwhelming to me when I try to ponder its possibilities. The 2K army is ridiculous against the Reaper (which I usually play) and there is something I really don't like about both its whirlwind attack and its ability to move twice, it just seems so wrong. I don't play many games outside of the Reaper, particularly of these two so I don't mean to say I think that these armies are broken with the game. Personally the addition I don't like is the Two Kings and Empowered Army. I really wish there were more custom games options b/c I wonder if Chess2 with classical army mirror match up but without the stones at all would be a really fresh and recognizable game (call it Siege or something). I enjoy it, there is some level of thought demanded in it, and it is also gambling. My suspicioun is that the stone duels would be the most controversial part of the game for serious Chess players. What part of Chess 2's additions to the classic board game do you feel most uneasy about? Out of all the 5 armies added and the pieces that they come with, and the midline invasion, and the stone duels.
0 kommentar(er)
