A Freaky Friday piece that can swap with a non-king or pawn piece of the same color still on the board, as long as neither can be captured or can take another piece before or immediately following the swap. Moves and captures like a king.
Interesting… This would be a great way to train newbies to look for weak points.
Yeah, I also thinks it helps as a training piece because it forces players to think past the next move. There’s virtually no move of opportunity that you can make with it. If you’re going to use it all, you need to think a minimum of two moves ahead.
I think the “neither can take another piece following the swap” is to restrictive. After the swap it is not your turn anymore anyway and it would basically make it impossible to swap with a queen or rook/bishop. They can capture something for most parts of the game. Just usually a protected piece.
The sniper.
- It moves like a king.
- It replaces one of the pawns on the board.
- If in any direction it has no more than one allied piece directly in front of it (cover), then at least (two? three?) unoccupied spaces between that ally and an enemy piece, it can take aim at an enemy piece.
- The next turn, if those conditions are still true, it can fire, capturing the target piece.
- An enemy piece adjacent to the target piece that could move into the line of fire can be sacrificed to take the bullet instead, though.
Intriguing, but does it have to have a meat shield?
It could probably either have to have a meat shield or have to take one turn to aim before firing but not both
This is somewhat similar to cannons from xiangqi, which move like rooks but can only capture by leaping over another piece on the line of attack.
Can it be captured?
Yes, the usage would be to block pieces in a way that won’t get it caught.
Yes, but the capturing piece is out of use for 5 turns whilst the terms of capture are fleshed out
deleted by creator
A piece that can capture pieces as if they have not moved a turn ago
I want a piece that can push other pieces, friendly or not
The Cardinal.
Unending has a bunch of piece-pushing (and you must get enemies to push each other for you to survive)!
The Tank
Replaces a knight
moves like a rook, captures like a pawn.
can’t be captured except by a knight or a tank.
Maybe the Capablanca’s idea could be a good solucion to avoid draws in classical chess, a piece caoabke to make a checkmate by itself, I mean, it only make sense for high level games, fortunately with chess 960 (ramdom chess) the opportunity of innovation and emotion is there.
There was a chess roguelike I can’t remember the name of that actually had a piece like this, except it was a big duck. It was very, very powerful.
oh damn i forgot about that chess balatro knockoff.
Comparison is the thief of joy my dude! It’s best to let people be creative and have similar concepts without calling their work knockoffs
that’s not how that saying works
Duck chess is honestly a pretty fun variant.
Passant is the only chess roguelike I know, is that it?
Passant?
The spy. It takes the form of one of your pawns but only you know which pawn is the spy.
If the spy kills a piece the way a regular pawn does, it ceases being a spy and reverts to bring a regular pawn.
If you position the spy on one side of an enemy piece with another of your pawns on the other side of it, you can recruit the piece as a pawn on your side (regardless of what class it was)
Kings and Queens are immune to spies.
When a spy is killed, any pieces it recruited are reverted to enemy pawns.
A similar variation is hidden queens
The Oligarch
While still standing, can force any non-pawn, non-oligarch piece on the opposite side to preform one move on their choice per turn.
The Landlord
Can claim any spot on the board as their own displacing the existing piece there and forcing it to move. If the piece has no viable move, they are just culled.
Both of these are waaaaaay to strong. Landlord just “culls” the Queen first turn. Or why not just the king?
Oligarch may also may just end in repeated moves. White uses oligarch to move black piece to bad position. Black moves same piece to good position again. One round wasted without any change to board.
Also, chess is based on the premise that you have to move a piece every turn and if you can’t, the game is a draw. Both of your pieces work by not moving.
My take: Just add time and different scenery.
Some pieces couldn’t move at night. Some could only move on grass land, some other only within woods or rocky mountains. And then there is a catapult where you can shoot pieces randomly back on the board.The Schemer, moves like a King, but attacks like a Queen. That way it only moves around the board slowly, until it can strike. Escape is tricky as it can’t move fast when not attacking, so it needs to enlist the support of other pieces to cover it’s moves.
It should start in place of the King’s bishop, whispering intreague in his ear.
deleted by creator
So for example: A Knight is 5 spaces away. The Schemer can move 5 spaces to take it, but if it doesn’t, it can only move 1 space?
That’s the idea. Powerwise I figure it falls below the queen, but still has the potential to suddenly attack across the board. The downside being, it’s then potentially quite vulnerable as it can only move one square at a time to get away, unless it can attack again.
A glass cannon for sure. I love it!
The Trebuchet…
non-attacking movement is limited to one square,
it cannot attack for one turn after moving or attacking,
it can attack any piece that is exactly 5 squares away,
it returns to the square it attacks from
So it must be almost in a corner, because the distance of 5 is only x +/-5 or y +/-5
Or is it Manhattan distance?
Does it count as 5 squares away if its 4 in one direction and 3 perpendicular to that?
Bureaucracy is good and this is stupid.
Not always. If you really need to keep track of several things, then it’s a necessity. The real question is whether some things actually need to be tracked.
The thing is that a lot of bureaucracy feels like it’s been weaponized in order to piss off people - I nearly didn’t get my current job because of that, I was asked for my PIS/PASEP number (Brazilian thing), but the bank didn’t have the means to print a whole ass official document stating that my number was whatever, I was literally given a photo of the manager’s screen checking their system, showing my data and said number. When I went to give my documents to my new employer, they looked at the number without any “official” paper and were like “no, this is invalid”.
I get what you mean, but I think bureaucracy is an inherently negative term.
I’d say policy and legislation can be good. Bureaucracy is policy that overcomplicates things.
Of course, what people call bureaucracy entirely depends on their incentives. For a CEO anything that makes it harder for him to increase profits (like privacy laws) would be bureaucracy.
Hi, excuse me, but it looks like you dropped this: /s
Nope. Bureaucracy is how you keep a society functioning. There’s nothing inherent in it that makes it bad or inflexible. That’s just poorly implemented bureaucracy.
I want bureaucracy enforcement by smart contract sitting on a public ledger hosted by each individual that verify each other through critical mass making changes only possible by votes.
Reworded using AI:
I wish there was a system for democracy that isn’t relying on human representatives but instead runs automatically through a network that everyone can participate in. In this system, rules and laws wouldn’t be enforced by politicians or government officials—they would be enforced by computer programs called smart contracts. These programs automatically make sure that everyone follows the rules and that nothing can be changed without the proper approval.
Every person in the network would have their own copy of the system running on their device. These copies constantly check each other to make sure no one is cheating or trying to change the rules secretly. If someone tries to break the rules, the network immediately notices and prevents it.
When it comes to changing the rules, nothing happens unless a majority of the people in the network vote in favor. This means that every citizen has a direct say in decisions, instead of relying on representatives who might have their own interests. Every vote and decision is permanently recorded in a transparent, public ledger, so there is no way to tamper with the results.
Applied to an entire democracy, this system could replace elections, legislation, and even enforcement. Policies, budgets, and laws could be proposed, debated, and voted on directly by the people. The system would enforce the outcomes automatically, ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability at every step. In essence, it would create a digital democracy where power truly belongs to the citizens, not to politicians or bureaucrats.
