Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Falling Off. `Captured' pieces do not disappear, but get momentum, and can fall off the edge of the board. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

(zzo38) A. Black wrote on Sat, Nov 19, 2005 04:58 AM UTC:

I haven't played, but I have played Super Smash Brothers Melee, in which you have to make your opponent fall off the screen. I don't know if this would be play similarly.

Jared McComb wrote on Sat, Nov 19, 2005 05:05 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

Probably not too similarly, but it's certainly a good idea.

This reminds me, I've been meaning to make a SSBM-styled variant.

George Duke wrote on Thu, Oct 18, 2007 04:55 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

[Betza's citation in the first line EOTW's inventor answered our Comment, the game's only Comment, three years ago] Still keying off Chess with Inverse Capture, we find correlates within Betza. What is outstanding about Ralph's articles is that there is never a hodgepodge of elements but a consistent theme. In Simple Inverse Capture, all the standard pieces act the way of capturing inversely. In Falling Off, every capture causes a consistent effect too, different from Inverse Capture. Here there is no capture as such. A 'capture' causes a 'careening' one step at a time in one direction toward and over the edge.  Here any number of pieces may be on the same square. In fact, moving a friendly piece onto its square stops the careening. What other CV permits multiple occupancy? The term 'Momentum' comes from EOTW which Ralph courteously credits. In the old days we would respect and reference our sources.  The actual Rules here need to  be more specific about the directionality of careening-capture, as Ralph acknowledges. Also whether a second, or double, capture changes direction of the careener or speeds its careening. ''Careening pieces cannot make their normal moves'' is a crux of the concept. We think that Falling Off would be the 'great game' Ralph claims on 10x10 or even 8x10.