Single Comment

Excellent concept. Deterministic 'randomness'. Love it, and have been looking at it in another context. I wonder if it might be noticeably different gameplay if the assignment of the landing hex was made randomly, rather than by the opponent. I would suspect players might be more adventurous if they knew that their moves would not always get the worst outcomes, as I find it reminiscent of some old Napoleonic wargames I played with somewhat similar random results for extended marches. Visually, it first instantly reminded me of LL Smith's HiveQueen. Classy set of rules. 

I'm trying to imagine how this plays. You always did enjoy an indirect approach to things, Graeme. This game ought to get interesting as the armies close. Has it been playtested? It looks like it would be a lot of close-in capturing, as pieces maneuver close to their opponents, but likely need a turn to go in for the kill. I'll have to look at the pieces again, but it seems to me the coordinator might be more useful than the long leaper. If this favors the defense, you might try a progressive form of movement. First player moves one piece. Thereafter, the moving player may move up to one more piece per turn than the other player just did. You might want to cap this at some reasonable value, or maybe not. This would even allow for passing a turn.

Lol, let me stop here. I have to say I've enjoyed your game quite a bit so far. It looks like it uses long-range movement and short-range combat. And it does raise some interesting questions about what is random, determinate, or effectively random. Good ideas - another post.