To start with point (2): This is clear that a rook on a8 cannot move to a3...a1 if a switch is occupied.
Regarding point (1), I already had doubts yesterday. According to my imagination so far, the squares of a switch (e.g. 4 and a4) can only be reached from a1...a3 or from rank 4. In my description I assume that a bishop starting from e8 can only reach square 4 of the switch and not a4. This affects a rook/queen on a8 in the same way.
But in this case it means that a move into the switch cannot be done if a piece is on a4, because then the squares 4 and a4 would be occupied together - which would not be in accordance with the rules. But this does not seem very logical.
Therefore, I think that a pragmatic solution for switches should be used.
If the switch should not be occupied, it is possible to move into the switch from above, from below or from the side, whereby either field 4 or a4 respectively 5 or h5 can be occupied.
In case the switch is occupied, the piece in the switch must be captured when the opponent's piece moves into the switch; the opponent's piece takes the place of the captured piece.
This means for your point (1): The rook on a8 can capture the piece on a4, and then it stands on a4.
This also means that a bishop on e8 can reach either square 4 or square a4. If a4 is chosen, then the next move can be towards f8 or towards d1. I think that such an procedure simplifies the rules and makes the game easier to play. What do you think?
Perhaps a remark about 'Avatar Chess'. The variants you mentioned (Lumberjack, Smess) were not known to me before. In normal chess, a piece has a fixed skill level, which means that during the game two kings, two queens, four rooks, etc. define the game. In Avatar Chess it is possible that up to 6 queens, 12 rooks etc. are in play - of course rather theoretically and then only for a short time. I think that this could be interesting.
To start with point (2): This is clear that a rook on a8 cannot move to a3...a1 if a switch is occupied.
Regarding point (1), I already had doubts yesterday. According to my imagination so far, the squares of a switch (e.g. 4 and a4) can only be reached from a1...a3 or from rank 4. In my description I assume that a bishop starting from e8 can only reach square 4 of the switch and not a4. This affects a rook/queen on a8 in the same way.
But in this case it means that a move into the switch cannot be done if a piece is on a4, because then the squares 4 and a4 would be occupied together - which would not be in accordance with the rules. But this does not seem very logical.
Therefore, I think that a pragmatic solution for switches should be used.
If the switch should not be occupied, it is possible to move into the switch from above, from below or from the side, whereby either field 4 or a4 respectively 5 or h5 can be occupied.
In case the switch is occupied, the piece in the switch must be captured when the opponent's piece moves into the switch; the opponent's piece takes the place of the captured piece.
This means for your point (1): The rook on a8 can capture the piece on a4, and then it stands on a4.
This also means that a bishop on e8 can reach either square 4 or square a4. If a4 is chosen, then the next move can be towards f8 or towards d1. I think that such an procedure simplifies the rules and makes the game easier to play. What do you think?
Perhaps a remark about 'Avatar Chess'. The variants you mentioned (Lumberjack, Smess) were not known to me before. In normal chess, a piece has a fixed skill level, which means that during the game two kings, two queens, four rooks, etc. define the game. In Avatar Chess it is possible that up to 6 queens, 12 rooks etc. are in play - of course rather theoretically and then only for a short time. I think that this could be interesting.