@Daniel: It seems to me that moving pieces like groups would give the game a very unchesslike feel. I suppose there could be other forms of 'air lifting', though, dependent on the presence of a transport piece, rather than its motion. E.g. highly mobile 'Aircraft Carrier' pieces could activate pure leapers other than King that stand next to it to emerge from an Aircraft Carrier elsewhere with a non-capturing move. Or perhaps be dropped on any empty square adjacent to the other Aircraft carrier. Or all leapers could be allowed to make a K step onto a friendly Carrier, to step off another Carrier in the same direction.
@Joe: 'piggybacking' a piece move on a pawn move would only lead to more participation of pieces when there are pieces that would otherwise not be worth moving. (Asuming the pawn moves were necessary anyway.) This seems to be a consequence of poor design in the first place. And a simpler rule would be to make all such 'non-worthwile moves' non-turn-ending.
The pawn double push seems to be a precedent for accelerating play with slow pieces. So I guess it would be natural to also grant multiple non-capture moves (in the same direction?) to other leapers, as long as they stay on their own half. And allow their e.p. capture on the squares they passed through.
@Daniel: It seems to me that moving pieces like groups would give the game a very unchesslike feel. I suppose there could be other forms of 'air lifting', though, dependent on the presence of a transport piece, rather than its motion. E.g. highly mobile 'Aircraft Carrier' pieces could activate pure leapers other than King that stand next to it to emerge from an Aircraft Carrier elsewhere with a non-capturing move. Or perhaps be dropped on any empty square adjacent to the other Aircraft carrier. Or all leapers could be allowed to make a K step onto a friendly Carrier, to step off another Carrier in the same direction.
@Joe: 'piggybacking' a piece move on a pawn move would only lead to more participation of pieces when there are pieces that would otherwise not be worth moving. (Asuming the pawn moves were necessary anyway.) This seems to be a consequence of poor design in the first place. And a simpler rule would be to make all such 'non-worthwile moves' non-turn-ending.
The pawn double push seems to be a precedent for accelerating play with slow pieces. So I guess it would be natural to also grant multiple non-capture moves (in the same direction?) to other leapers, as long as they stay on their own half. And allow their e.p. capture on the squares they passed through.