From: Ken Rutsky Subject: Re: Feudal Jim Mason wrote: > That being said, have you played Feudal? Is it fun, challenging, > stupid, or some combination thereof? If the answer is some > combination, could any of you elaborate? I kind of like the game, though it's really a thing you have to be in the mood to play; this is exactly what I feel about playing Chess, btw, so that might explain my attitude toward this Chess variant. From two to six players. Six armies are provided, three in shades of brown or tan and three in shades of blue. If less than six players are participating in the game, players may control more than one army, discarding the Royalty (King, Prince, and Duke), along with the Castle and Squire of all but one of them for that game. A side is eliminated when its Royalty is eliminated or when its Castle falls. Physically, the game is a mixed bag. The playing pieces (with the exception of the Castle, which is merely ok) are well done plastic figurines with a peg molded from the bottom of their base. A friend and I used to play epic games using all six armies and, believe me, it looked impressive. The playing surface, however... It's composed of four plastic pegboards. Each pegboard is something like 12x12 squares. They are arranged by one player before the game starts; each has a different terrain configuration (there are three types of terrain: Mountains, which are impassable; Marshes, which Cavalry cannot enter; and Clear, through which all can pass.). Doesn't sound so bad, but the graphics are horrible (and their simplcity might be due to the cost of some specialized printing process or just the cost of making the boards themselves left no room for fancy graphics), worse than...[fill in the blank]. Diagonal movement, btw, is allowed. The player who arranges the pegboards is looking for an ideal defensive spot for his Castle, as his opponent gets to move first; believe me, two offensive setups is disaster for the second player. Setup is hidden, adding a bit of spice. Players may move all or part of their armies during their turn. There are several types of pieces: the King, the Squire, Spearmen, Sergeants, Cavalry (includes the Prince, the Duke, and two Knights) and the Archer. Each has a unique pattern of movement. For example, the King and Squire pieces have moves that complement the other in defense, Spearmen have good straight-line movement but are limited diagonally, vice-versa for Sergeants, while Cavalry can move an unlimited number of spaces in every direction, making them quite powerful. Elimination of pieces is accomplished as in Chess, with one exception. The Archer may fire his bow up to three squares in any direction (even diagonally, Pythagoras be damned), eliminating the enemy piece occupying the target square. To conquer an opponent's Castle, you must move a piece onto the Castle Green. The next turn, you move into the Citadel. Moves are setup so that a Squire can never conquer a Castle. I've had games drag for hours of concentrated and intricate integration of maneuvers (it is even beneficial to use something resembling formations!), and I've had some resemble a Medieval Blitzkrieg. It has to do with the number of pieces on the board, I think. One thing that's true, though, is that the first couple of turns are EXTREMELY bloody, and it's how you come out of this chaotic phase of the game which determines your stance. You can find this game in auctions really cheap; I'd recommend picking it up. It's my favorite Chess variant, though, mind you, I haven't yet experienced WC2K! Ken Rutsky -- "The opinion of most of the musicians I have met is that the music business sucks. This is because the music business sucks." -Robert Fripp