Oþoh I can see the other case where someone expects to simply be able to write e.g. [B-fW] for a transcendental prelate/contramanticore, and is confused by the fact that it disallows the W squares ...
But there B is an initial leg, and I don't like it at all that initial legs would behave differently from only legs. Perhaps we have different intuition, because I would consider it natural that the Tamerlane Giraffe would only need F+2W: one for every traversed square where it isn't allowed to stop. When 0 steps is allowed, you would need [F-fF-fB] for the Tamerlane Picket, and [F-fB] would be a normal Bishop. I think that is really strange.
BTW, [W?sfNN], and even [W?sfCC] work now. All through using a new, undocumented (and quite horrible) extension of XBetza.
But there B is an initial leg, and I don't like it at all that initial legs would behave differently from only legs. Perhaps we have different intuition, because I would consider it natural that the Tamerlane Giraffe would only need F+2W: one for every traversed square where it isn't allowed to stop. When 0 steps is allowed, you would need [F-fF-fB] for the Tamerlane Picket, and [F-fB] would be a normal Bishop. I think that is really strange.
BTW, [W?sfNN], and even [W?sfCC] work now. All through using a new, undocumented (and quite horrible) extension of XBetza.