When I once tested a Q3AD on 8x8 it turned out to be exactly as valuable as a Queen. The ability to jump to the second square (which the Werewolf also has) instead of sliding there apparently fully compensates the lack of moves more distant than 3. And the Werewolf has the ability to use the jump as a locust capture, which should be worth quite a lot.
I admit that this assessment did not take into account the contageon. But I am not even sure whether this is an asset or a liability. Of course when you allow an unprotected Werewolf to be captured, this is quite fatal. But having an unprotected Queen captured is usually also 'game over'. Compensation should come from a counter-strike against an unprotected piece elsewhere that is at least as valuable. In the hypothetical case that one army has a Werewolf and the other a Queen the contageon of the former would spoil that. So you cannot use that tactic as the Werewolf player. But a non-contaeous Werewolf being stronger than a Queen you would not want to do that even without contageon. I cannot imagine a scenario where you could get two pieces for the Werewolf through a counter-strike. So how much would it hurt that you cannot do something you would like to avoid anyway?
Without contageon you can trade a Queen or Werewolf for two pieces (e.g. 2 Rooks) in a direct exchange (i.e. on the same square), without incurring a disastrous loss. But only when you make the last capture. Contageon makes that in fact easier, because now you get your Werewolf back, and effectively traded the second attacker for the two pieces. E.g. when the Werewolf is backed by a Bishop as an X-ray attack on a Rook protected by a Bishop. Without contageon WxR, BxR, BxB would have sacrificed the Werewolf for R+B. But with contageon you would gain a full Rook by this. A Werewolf can boldly lead the attack, as long as you keep it sufficiently protected.
I wouldn't be surprised is the advantages of being contageous outweigh the drawbacks. But I haven't actually tested it.
When I once tested a Q3AD on 8x8 it turned out to be exactly as valuable as a Queen. The ability to jump to the second square (which the Werewolf also has) instead of sliding there apparently fully compensates the lack of moves more distant than 3. And the Werewolf has the ability to use the jump as a locust capture, which should be worth quite a lot.
I admit that this assessment did not take into account the contageon. But I am not even sure whether this is an asset or a liability. Of course when you allow an unprotected Werewolf to be captured, this is quite fatal. But having an unprotected Queen captured is usually also 'game over'. Compensation should come from a counter-strike against an unprotected piece elsewhere that is at least as valuable. In the hypothetical case that one army has a Werewolf and the other a Queen the contageon of the former would spoil that. So you cannot use that tactic as the Werewolf player. But a non-contaeous Werewolf being stronger than a Queen you would not want to do that even without contageon. I cannot imagine a scenario where you could get two pieces for the Werewolf through a counter-strike. So how much would it hurt that you cannot do something you would like to avoid anyway?
Without contageon you can trade a Queen or Werewolf for two pieces (e.g. 2 Rooks) in a direct exchange (i.e. on the same square), without incurring a disastrous loss. But only when you make the last capture. Contageon makes that in fact easier, because now you get your Werewolf back, and effectively traded the second attacker for the two pieces. E.g. when the Werewolf is backed by a Bishop as an X-ray attack on a Rook protected by a Bishop. Without contageon WxR, BxR, BxB would have sacrificed the Werewolf for R+B. But with contageon you would gain a full Rook by this. A Werewolf can boldly lead the attack, as long as you keep it sufficiently protected.
I wouldn't be surprised is the advantages of being contageous outweigh the drawbacks. But I haven't actually tested it.