After some playtesting of Sac Chess, I am more confident it is playable, and may be a very rich game indeed, given it has so many pieces. What pleases me a lot is that while in chess an average game is 40 moves, with a pair of units traded on average every 5 moves (thus leaving an average of 8 pieces per side at the end of a game), in Sac Chess an average game so far on Game Courier seems to last about 60-80 moves, though at times being played out until mate (if done for chess, an average game of it might last about as long, too). It seems the rate at which a pair of units is traded in Sac Chess is about every 3.5 to 4 moves, which would also put an average game at around 80 moves, if such a game got down to 8 pieces per side (though it doesn't seem to get this far in practice, so far on Game Courier). Another nice thing about Sac Chess is that it seems to allow for more decisive games than is the case in chess, if played at a high level, I'd guess.

One thing I'm not sure about is how rich the early opening phase, or range of 'good' opening variations, can be for Sac Chess. Playing something like the Pirc Defence in chess seems less attractive here, since White's Queen is guarded by an Amazon in the start position, so White might early on hit Black's knight on the kingside with the appropriate centre pawn. Also, Open Sicilians in chess may be a little, or a lot, less attractive for White in Sac Chess. Then there are the ramifications of the Queen's Gambit Accepted in chess still waiting to be analyzed, if played in Sac Chess, and this could be really critical to the range of attractive/promising White openings. On the other hand, 'insipid' sidelines in chess may be much more interesting in Sac Chess (in regard to the early opening moves, I mean as always here). Even if White's initiative is less than in chess, this can be seen as a good thing, perhaps.

Regarding the names I chose for some of the pieces, I still like 'Missionary' and 'Sailor' as used (these seem even a bit appropriate, given what a man is crossed with, e.g. a bishop in the former case). However, I have some regret about not using 'Centaur' instead of 'Judge' (I somehow missed the Centaur entry on wikipedia, in spite of looking at its long list of fairy chess pieces several times for just such a precedent). On the other hand, maybe there's something nicer about using the name of a human occupation (Judge), rather than the name of a mythical monster; at least there were travelling judges in medieval times. Plus, I'd note that I don't completely get the consistency of why, e.g., an Amazon is called what it is, since no horse is involved in that name, and given that such a female warrior doesn't necessarily ride a horse (not only that, but a knight might be seen as a man riding a horse). But I digress.