Enter Your Reply

Offhand the piece-types of Klin Zha Star Trek are at best ambiguous in
deliberate imitation of Martian Jetan. Lancer as ''1,2, or 3 unobstructed
spaces straight in any direction'' or Swift as ''2, 3, or 4
unobstructed spaces in any direction or combination'' may achieve reasonable
definitional clarity with no small effort. It is rude to write up rules
that way, dumping the interpretation on the player. Does ''any direction'' mean through and across each vertex as well as side? [Near the end, before ''Notation,'' it says no ''point-to-point,'' only ''side-to-side,'' for later comment.] Interior triangles with 3 others adjacent across sides, have 9 more across vertices, for 12 altogether. Whether pathways may retrace is unknown. Even once
ambiguity resolves, they are not very good inspiration as piece-types for
couple reasons. One, overlap in functionality with so many, including those
other than Lance and Swift, going to similar squares from a hypothetical common
departure square, each alternatively placed. Two, on 81 cells, there is nothing compelling about 3 or 4
spaces as the outer limit.  Why not five, or all the way across?  Klin Zha probably falls within a cross-category of ''from the outside-in'' without empathy for the carrying power of the spaces themselves and
the mode-units forced to follow more or less arbitrary rules. Whether or not Klin Zha's rules, once fully in mind, may have redeeming over-all coherence is left for follow-up to this preliminary appraisal.