This makes it sound as if pieces can switch side (which, without the Conquer rule, isn't possible here); really you'd have to explicit that it's moving from a white square to a black one, or v.v.
But even so, I think it'd be clearer still to simply say something to the effect of “If the knight is on a white square, it moves as in standard chess; from a black square, it moves as a chancellor”. I.e. phrasing it as a single piece that moves differently depending on its starting square rather than two pieces that change from one to the other. For comparison (though the double images may be a touch overkill)
Also incidentally, it seems oddly inconsistent to me to describe the Dragon Horse move as part of the description of the (morphing) Bishop,
but to leave the descriptions of all other unorthodox move options to the end, apart from their relevant pieces
This makes it sound as if pieces can switch side (which, without the Conquer rule, isn't possible here); really you'd have to explicit that it's moving from a white square to a black one, or v.v.
But even so, I think it'd be clearer still to simply say something to the effect of “If the knight is on a white square, it moves as in standard chess; from a black square, it moves as a chancellor”. I.e. phrasing it as a single piece that moves differently depending on its starting square rather than two pieces that change from one to the other. For comparison (though the double images may be a touch overkill)
Also incidentally, it seems oddly inconsistent to me to describe the Dragon Horse move as part of the description of the (morphing) Bishop, but to leave the descriptions of all other unorthodox move options to the end, apart from their relevant pieces