Single Comment

I've been thinking about this and the bishop move seems far to complex. 
Also I think that there is a simpler way to give the rook it's move, If
the rook moves as a bishop, or as a rook followed by an optional bishop
move outward it will cover the same squares.  However it will not cover
any twice, and it will follow a path that at least somewhat resembles a
straight line.

For the bishop I think that a 3-d move followed by an optional bishop move
outward.  And of course the option to move as a bishop.  The possible
moves make the outline of a cube at any given distance from the piece,
this is good because the rook move makes the outline of an octahedron (a
cube's dual.)

This has a few advantages over the old one, first off it separates the
playing field into 6 equal parts (assuming it were in the center of an
odd-ordered board) as opposed to the old one which separated it into 14
unequal parts.  Second it is far more elegant and easy to understand than
the older version.  There were others but I’ve forgotten.

The biggest problem I see is that the new piece isn't colorbound.

Finally the Knight is missing part of it's move, it should move as shown
as well as jumping diagonally one space followed by a obligatory three
spaces in a non coplanar three squares rook like.  In three-dimensional
notation that is (1,1,3).  The extra moves return the knight to the exact
percent coverage it should have, but other pieces have more than they used
to so it is still weaker.

This changes every piece, because the queen's move is changed, and the
king's is also because now 3d moves are diagonal, so it can now move to
every space in a 3x3x3 cube around it.  The pawn can now move one space
forwards, or capture in a donut around the space it can move to.

As I said before, I think that an entire plane of pawns occupying the
second and seventh rows of each level might be a good idea.

I guess that’s it, maybe I'll send in an update.

P.S.
Thanks gnohmon I appreciate the changing to excellent.