You write the variant does not have piece drops, but then you write: " The player who can no longer move or drop pieces loses".
It is not clear what you mean by 'situation' in the description of the repetition rule. Is that just the same board position, or does it also mean the same player has to be on move? When you write the 'after it occurred twice no one can repeat the position again' you suggest that it does not matter who has the move. Because one it does, only the player that created the position for the first time could recreate it.
And about the absence of a 50-move rule: it it really your intention that when an endgame of King versus King results the players should go on until one of them gets stalemated by the ban on repetition? That seems awful.
The ascii diagram of the initial position seems redundant. And wrong too, because there is a Templar in there.
You write the variant does not have piece drops, but then you write: " The player who can no longer move or drop pieces loses".
It is not clear what you mean by 'situation' in the description of the repetition rule. Is that just the same board position, or does it also mean the same player has to be on move? When you write the 'after it occurred twice no one can repeat the position again' you suggest that it does not matter who has the move. Because one it does, only the player that created the position for the first time could recreate it.
And about the absence of a 50-move rule: it it really your intention that when an endgame of King versus King results the players should go on until one of them gets stalemated by the ban on repetition? That seems awful.
The ascii diagram of the initial position seems redundant. And wrong too, because there is a Templar in there.