Comments by JorgKnappen

This one looks better, mainly because the templars (ND-compounds) are gone. But how bad the bishops are looking! You can't even dream of fianchetto, and the Knaves on the second rank have no sensible moves at all: If you advance one, it will be chased back to its starting square by a pawn, or you loose it entirely. The queen also looks cramped in the initial area, but she may find a way out of her mess.

It is not easy to design a good army and initial position ... still good stuff for thought!

Analysing the game deeper, it appears to me that it is too drawish to be worth playing.

The issues are mating material and crossing the channel.

Because the King is confined to his own half of the board, he cannot assist his pieces in giving checkmate. Therefore, at least two pieces (one major and one minor one) are needed for checkmate.

There are at least three rule changes lifting this severe condition: a) [most elegant] import the rule from chinese chess, that the Kings may not face each other. With this rule, King+Rook win against a lone King b) Declare bare King a win as in Shatranj c) Declare Stalemate a win (and not a draw).

The rules with the ferries are incomplete; I interpolate the following additional rules:

* Pieces on the ferry are vulnerable to capture

* The ferry loaded with a piece can capture another piece

* An empty ferry sent to an occupied square does not capture, instead it is mounted by the piece there

* An empty ferry cannot be sent to a square occupied by a dragon

I cannot interpolate whether a rook or dragon may 'fly' over an empty ferry or not.

The major issue is, that after crossing the channel, the piece on the ferry is essentially unprotected. It can be protected only by a rook or queen - it does not help against double attack. Therefore crossing the channel is hard. Wessex has a severe handicap here, because it lacks  rooks and owns only one queen.

Wales can try to monopolise the control of the ferries by bringing them both to its side: Only the Wessex' queen can than occupy the ferry and send it back. But, I'm afraid, this is also only a drawing strategy.

Ben asked: >Where does it say the king cannot move to the other side of the board?

I infer this particular rule from the table entry King/on a ferry: It only mentions the default action of sending the ferry to another shore square (not occupied by the second ferry); but does not mention the ability of the King to move with the ferry.

A king on a ferry is a strange beast: He cannot be checked by a dragon. Thus sending a ferry to the King can remove check given by a dragon. The Endgame King on a ferry vs. King and any number of dragons becomes a draw this way.

Charles, after all, you are the game designer and it is your decision (after, I hope, some playtesting) what design you want to implement.

With the King being able to cross the channel, additional rules may be not necessary, but it is worth to think about game endings and how to judge them in any game design.

Adding new methods of capture (like overtaking [2/3] and approach capture [4/5]) to the dragons is certainly a good idea, you may also consider igui capture (killing a piece on a adjacent square without moving).

This will correct the balance of pieces protecting another piece over the channel on the ferry from 1:3 (Queen vs. Queen and 2 Rooks) to 3:5 (Queen and 2 Dragons vs. Queen, 2 Dragons, and 2 Rooks)---a balance I'd consider still very unbalanced, since Wales can try to sharpen it by exchanging Queens and Dragons.

I suggest that you take a chess board, two kings and some piece representing the rhino (a knight works well for me) and try it out.

I must admit, that I didn't analyse the specific position nnz gave here, the placement of the supporting King is a bit awkward here. Both of your proposals to repair the situation work out fine.

For similar pieces: A gnu and a king can drive the king to the edge, but cannot give mate; the same holds for the quintessence (of quintessential chess).

Now I found the time to look up patzen/Patzer in an etymological
dictionary. It is a german word;
deriving from the common german wird 'Batzen' (lump, chunk, glob; also a
historic small coin minted in Switzerland) and showing Bavarian or Austrian
spelling (B->P). Batzen is derived from 'Backen' (to bake).

I looked up patsy in the OED, it is attested in 1889, postdating the german
use of Patzer. 

I assosciate the word Patzer to the Viennese coffee house chess culture,
where chess master earned money playing against Patzers. It is the age of
Steinitz (one generation before Einstein and Lasker) or even ealier.

Ah, and than there is another german word, related but not too close,
'patzig' meaning stroppy, snotty, bolshie. It describes the typical mood
of teenagers very well.

Thanks, George