Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I have my doubts on the value of combining independent exotic rule modifications. It is usually obvious that this can be done, and it would lead to a combinatorial explosion of the number of variants. E.g. you could put the Bull's Eye in the center of a 10x8 board with Archbishop and Chancellor, and wrap the board around like a cylinder, and make the Queen contageous, and shuffle the pieces on the back-rank of the initial position...

I think a good idea is best presented in its pure form, without any distraction. I don't see how addition of a Bull's Eye would solve any problem in Conquer, and Vice Versa.

I don't see how addition of a Bull's Eye would solve any problem in Conquer, and Vice Versa

Bull's eye does not solve any problems in classical chess either, but complements the way of playing.

My approach is the following:
I see the way of playing classical chess and the way of playing Conquer as equivalent: Classical chess is about weakening the fighting force by capturing pieces. Conquer is about the opposite, strengthening the fighting force by conquering. In both 'equal' cases, the bull's eye supports the gameplay and complements the game. In this respect I see two independent variants, namely 'Classical Chess & Bull's eye' and 'Conquer & Bull's eye' - the former only called 'Bull's eye' for short.

If you can follow the approach you will see that I am not interested in exploding the number of variants in a combinatory way.

But Conquer is not equivalent to orthodox Chess. Hundreds of millions play the latter, and so far only 1 or 2 play the other. So this amounts to making a variant of a non-played variant. That is in general not useful, unless this change in some way works especially well in combination with the non-played variant, and could remove one of the aspects that discourage people to play it. Adding an unrelated exotic rule just discourages people even more.