New piece rules and combos, your advice is needed

Some ideas for the Camel

Idea N°1

Idea N°2

idea N°3

idea N°4

Original camel suffers from colorboundness. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lCiu7x7BgWE

We read that "The Emperor moves like Queen + Knight + Musketeer Chess Hawk", so on the picture showing Emperor's movement there should be also h1 tile marked, right? I noticed it just now

Now that I learned about Musketeer Chess, I wonder if with a solid support from behind e1 tile, one could make a Bongcloud an actually viable opening

Can there be a rebellion?

Obviously since the present game of chess has evolved over many centuries, there must have been numerous revisions of it over the years, and I suspect that a delicate balance between movement and capture, offence and defence, occupation of space and the capacity to move into another piece's space, has been gradually perfected.  But with all these suggestions for new pieces, considerable thought has to be devoted to the problem of how they will interact and how this will affect the character of play.  I suspect that too many pieces will be taken too early in the game because of the enhanced offensive power of these new pieces, and that may ruin the development of conceptually more sophisticated middle game positions.  For every one new piece suggested, there has to be a month of careful calculation about whether it will help or hurt the game.

So excited about these new pieces! I'd love to see combos that feature:

1. figural dragon & griffin

2. camel & buffalo

3. lion & eagle ( atttila)

4. zebra & rhino

How might it effect the game? 

And I also meant a rebellion in your side like a betrayer 

I had an idea, which I decided to post here since it seems to be an active discussion about new chess pieces.

Instead of inventing a chess piece and then estimating its value, how about choosing a piece value and then seeing how many different pieces can have that same value?

For example: value = 3.0

known pieces with this value: bishop, knight, and guard.

bishop:

knight:

guard:

what else?

It doesn't matter if Lasker said the power of the king in the endgame is around 4 points. The commoner is near knights value in the endgame. Still if piece values is writen in chess books, does not mean it's universal and official. H. G. Muller said so. 

The wolf and dog ideas are excellent pieces but I think they are still stronger than a bishop, knight, or guard (mann).

The knight and guard attack 8 squares, but the wolf and dog attack 12 squares. With attacking more squares than a knight, these pieces might be worth about a rook. Those would not be bad pieces to add to a game. But it shows how pieces with interesting attack patterns can quickly become powerful, and if too many are on a board at once, it can drastically change the game dynamics.

The hawk is another piece which attacks 16 squares, which I believe makes it more powerful than a rook - maybe worth about 7 points?

@hitthepin and I just started a game of (infinite chess) which has both Chancellors and Hawks. But since the board is huge (actually infinite) the game seems to work well.

The wolf is colourbound. 

You're right. I simply overlooked that.

Hi happy new year Zied and all the CV Friends.

I find the Aquila too powerful so probably the best is Hawk+Camel making Aquila more powerful than Hawk but not too powerful. The other ideas will make Aquila too strong. What do you think about this cousin?

I wish muskuteerchess can look upon the guard or commoner (aka the crownless king) within this year.   And maybe standardize it for variant eligable like Knightmate & TwoKings (Wild9 on ICC). 

Personally i find Knightmate fun variant to play once in a while. 

Thanks for update, but the way "Warrior" piece is not to be found in "Musketeer Chess, Relative Piece Value" 

How tall is the Warrior/Guard compared to the standard King. 

If the King is in the 90-95mm range then 83mm is fine.

This is how Knightmate looks like in 2D viewpoint. 

I use unicorn to visualize that the is knight is royal, it moves like the standard knight. 

The guard/warrior can be used to represent the NON-royal king. It moves like the king - "Kings" are just ordinary pieces. They move like Kings, but are NOT checked or checkmated. They're just pieces.

Knightmate is the same as Regular Chess except that on e1 you place a White Knight, on e8 a Black Knight, on b1 and g1 White Kings, and on b8 and g8 Black Kings. Only the Knights are "royal" (checkable and checkmateable). Kings are NON-royal.

The variation is originating from the 1970s. 

http://www.chessvariants.com/knightmatefaq.html

To your question: Hawk + Camel option is severly restricted in close proximity. 

Hawk + Knight is interesting concept. 

Too much like Hawk. You should avoid using size as the only distinction, IMO. This might be difficult for birds of prey, so perhaps you should avoid naming too many pieces after birds of prey. If you have to use a bird, use a clearly distinguishable one. Like a Rooster or a Pelican.