Single Comment

Sorry that I cannot be more encouraging, but much offline analysis has
convinced me that this variant adds little to the existing range of 3d
variants. The best that I can say is that it could be played with two FIDE
sets of each of four sizes (or 2 of 4 novelty styles, or 4 of 2 if
directional) with some Kings marked.
	The mixture of pieces is too complex. Even MY arrays don't exceed 16
piece types (Leapale) to your 23! The established 3 simple, 3 double, and
optional 1 triple combination works well with the right pieces (Rook,
Bishop, and one other) but serving up 3 doses in 1 variant is rather OTT.
Taking the three groups in turn, the radial linepiece group is standard
enough, in the most complex Bonnart 3d variant as well as in most of mine.
The oblique leaper group surely has the same memorability problems as
Michael Howe highlights on my large 2d variant Great Herd; even the
Bonnart variant sticks to 3 simple ones and their triple compound. Planar
pieces not unlike Chris Witham's make sense on so large a 3d board, but
they do overshadow, to the point of questioning the need to retain, the
radial ones.
	Then there is the assymmetry of the array. The choice between symmetry by
rotation or by reflection is an aesthetic one (Alberto Monteiro inspired
me to modify my original idea for Tunnelchess from the former to the
latter) but this variant seems to dither between them. Given that only 5
types of piece are colourbound it hardly seems necessary.