For the Wizard, I'm thinking FyafsFyafsafF for the basic move, if I'm reading the coding correctly. (I'll probably keep the place-switching part in leap mode: udFudNudC.)
It should not contain the y, which would 'range-toggle' the next leg to make it an unlimited-range slide. So FafsFafsafF would do. BTW, I am not sure what the added value is of making these moves lame rather than direct leaps. And that they would not be lame for the swapping is an inconsitency.
The description of checkmate still confuses me, and even seems inconsistent at places: you say that when your King is in checkmate you cannot rescue it by checkmating your opponent back, and then later you say that you can do that, and would even win by it. If you specify unusual rules w.r.t. royalty, you cannot take anything for granted, and should clearly specify what makes a pseudo-legal move illegal. As I understand it, in this case that would be to leave the King under attack, except when there is no pseudo-legal move that would could resolve that and you still have a Prince, in which case all pseudo-legal moves become legal. (Even moves that create new attacks on your King? Can you move your King to another attacked square in that case?)
This exception to the normal checking rule can cause your King to get captured, and you have a rule to address this: the Prince promotes to King. After that you no longer have a Prince, so the acception does not apply, and you basically revert to the normal chess rules for check(mate).
Note that Tamerlane II uses a very similar rule, which the ID implements through the succession parameter. The difference is that there the Prince does not promote when your King gets captured, but that you have to spend a move on that (only allowed when otherwise you would have been checkmated).
It should not contain the y, which would 'range-toggle' the next leg to make it an unlimited-range slide. So FafsFafsafF would do. BTW, I am not sure what the added value is of making these moves lame rather than direct leaps. And that they would not be lame for the swapping is an inconsitency.
The description of checkmate still confuses me, and even seems inconsistent at places: you say that when your King is in checkmate you cannot rescue it by checkmating your opponent back, and then later you say that you can do that, and would even win by it. If you specify unusual rules w.r.t. royalty, you cannot take anything for granted, and should clearly specify what makes a pseudo-legal move illegal. As I understand it, in this case that would be to leave the King under attack, except when there is no pseudo-legal move that would could resolve that and you still have a Prince, in which case all pseudo-legal moves become legal. (Even moves that create new attacks on your King? Can you move your King to another attacked square in that case?)
This exception to the normal checking rule can cause your King to get captured, and you have a rule to address this: the Prince promotes to King. After that you no longer have a Prince, so the acception does not apply, and you basically revert to the normal chess rules for check(mate).
Note that Tamerlane II uses a very similar rule, which the ID implements through the succession parameter. The difference is that there the Prince does not promote when your King gets captured, but that you have to spend a move on that (only allowed when otherwise you would have been checkmated).