Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

My mistake, the confusion arose from:
(a) a Wazir being a minor piece against a FIDE King - but of course that
depends on the King's extra ability to move diagonally;
(b) Xiang Qi's nearest analogy, a promoted Soldier trapping a bared
General in the Fortress, being stalemate - but again where captures get
carried out there is no stalemate.
I will get on with editing to express things more vaguely.

Charles, your use of the phrase 'double move' to connote two entirely different things in adjacent sentences potentially leads to confusion.

You won't mind, I presume, if I change the phrase, 'Pawns inherit the FIDE double move...' to read, 'FIDE initial two step move...'?

We might then leave the next sentence intact or optionally substitute 'A wazir spending five turns...' for 'A Wazir spending five double moves...'

Please let me know whether you would approve either or perhaps both of these minor editorial changes.

I think I understand it.  Just to be on the safe side:

A wazir who moves into the zone can survive for 5 complete turns.
So, if he moves into the zone, the first half turn would consist of the opponents turn. 
This means that if he does not move out of the zone by the 5th turn made by you, he is gone.
A wazir that leaves the zone and re-enters starts with a fresh count.  

Is this correct?  Thanks for the clarification, Charles.

Another quick question:

According to the rules: 'The winner is the first player to end a move as the only player with Wazirs.' which leads me to believe that the player who loses all of their wazirs first loses.

According to the preset created by Jeremy Good: 'Game composed of just wazirs and pawns. Wazirs, prone to special disappearing rule. Object : Get rid of your wazirs.'  Meaning that you win by losing all of YOUR wazirs.

Is Jeremy's preset one of his variant variants?  Or is there an inconsistency between the rules?  Thanks!

-Nick

This is a good game: It is fun to play. I even like the name showing some humour.

Since Charles suggested elsewhere to drop or change this game: please let it stand here as it is. It even inspired another game (I'm a Ferz, get me into there).

All in all, this game has well thought 'game mechanics' and is worth keeping.

This variant is safe because it has an implementation. It is not very chesslike by the criteria discussed on another current thread - it has terrain, few piece types, and no royal piece - and it is driven by its theme, but someone liked it enough to implement it.
	Of course I'm always glad when I produce a variant that others like, but I do feel that I've achieved it rather without trying in this case. I put a lot less thought and effort into this variant than I did my more recent variants, or even others of the same year. It was also less well worded than my usual standard, until I had constructive criticism to respond to. I will not however be modifying the array diagram to mark the terrain.
	How many people actually know the origins of the title? Ir was whipped off the page very quickly. Substituting the name of a chessman for 'celebrity' is not in itself very witty. Why use a Wazir? Why not a Knight, or a Steward, or a Silvergeneral? It began as a pun on the name of a terrorist leader. Do you still like it so much? Hopefully it won't put you off the game itself.