I think I already addressed the rule about the defending king, and about archers.

to kill the defending king, you must attack him while he is in "check" from two other sources.

three archers would only be 1.5 sources, a distinct and separate pair of archers is required for any given 'hit'. to put it another way, an archer can only back up one other archer. they only work in matched pairs.

i'd intended to keep things simple for this game, so i didn't want to look at special movement rules like a pawn's first move being two squares in real chess. if anyone wants to give it a try though, it might give infantry some more importance.

i like the mock up pieces and board. thanks for taking the time to do that, Tephlon!

"If I wanted to read Wuthering Heights, I'd shoot my self."

I was playing devils advocate with the archers/king rule. :evil:
Stated as above this it's a lot clearer.

As for the mockup board, It was my pleasure...

PS: Did you see the table? I got it to work. 3 posts back

_Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak._

oh, yes, sorry i forgot to mention that.

as i said, i don't know how useful some people will find it, but it's a well laid out table that covers all the information.

folks who're used to wargames and whatnot should definately be right at home with it.

"If I wanted to read Wuthering Heights, I'd shoot my self."

Did some more playtesting. Fiddled with the infantry.

Conclusion:
The amount of infantry doesn't really matter. Their only role is as support. They are useless against archers, even with reduced range and two moves a turn. They only come into play in the endgame and it is more a matter of swapping pieces then.

From what i gathered from the rules and from here, there are to players: the attacker and the defender. What if, the two players switched off at some point.

what do you mean? took turns as attacker and defender? or halfway through a game suddenly started playing the other side?

cause, if it's the first one, there's no reason why you can't. when playing chess, we used to hold a white and black pawn in separate (random) hands and hold them behind our backs. the other person would pick a hand, and play whichever side he chose.

if you would rather play one side and your opponent would rather play the other, then don't even bother with it and just play what you want to...

honestly i'm not sure what the confusion is there.

"If I wanted to read Wuthering Heights, I'd shoot my self."

I love testing games, but having not much free time at my hands I don't want to make false promises. I'd like to sign up for later though, late autumn, when I've got my daily routine... should that ever happen....

"Hoher Sinn liegt oft im kindischen Spiel." (Friedrich Schiller)