Both Mablak and I (Balee) prepared a little written review of the schemes. Have fun!

---

Quickdraw by NAiL

Game and weapon settings: It seems every weapon and utility is valuable in this scheme, you always need to save a worm select or two for the end of the game, where turn advantage may kill you. Though it would seem infinite rope is too generous, it actually requires too much starting and stopping to be overpowering.

Originality: You could probably compare this scheme to intermediate, given the dependence on kill-spotting. But it also has a very unique rope-oriented skill of fast, accurate starts and stops, something that isn't crucial in any other scheme.

Over-all gameplay: Each weapon in this scheme provides its own strategies for use. For example, in many situations it's best to try to avoid being the first to use freeze, since your opponent can use it right after you. And you may want to save jetpack and grenade no matter what the cost, since using them together can get you a certain kill later in the game. A ton of thought can go into conservation of weapons in this scheme. In addition, turn advantage can play a huge part of the game, but worm selects mediate its effects. Nonetheless, when getting an opponent down to his last worms, you always need to consider whether you'll be able to deal with the turn advantage he gains from having one worm; you may want to leave certain killable worms alive at times. This scheme requires you to think every turn, and it demands both strategic skills and motor skills.

Casual fun: Considering how quickly the rounds can move, and how simple the game is to play without any complicated rules, it makes for a fun casual scheme. There is a fair amount of thinking though, which would deter some players from picking it up.

Competitive fun: This scheme would work well in leagues or tournaments, as there is clearly the potential for a high level of play. With so little turn time, you have to be able to spot potential kills, potential piles, etc. almost instantly. It also has enough interesting situations to be enjoyable in the long run.


To begin with the worst part of the scheme, it was kinda annoying for me that 10 seconds is not "absurdly" low, so you don't think of a move that'll take, I donno, just a few seconds, since "oh, I have time to do this and that". But 10 seconds is not long enough to actually do what you planned. That's all for the bad things, actually. Other than this - which is of course only ironically could be called a bad thing -, the scheme is enjoyable, the pace is really fine, the idea itself, even though in my opinion it copied just a few elements from Hytseria, is great. Typically the kind of scheme which one can either take really seriously and be awesome in it, or just have fun, laugh at other people's screw ups and awe at their skills or luck. Although I think instead of random placement and one turn of just trying to save your worms from the certain death - which tends to result in only one or no worms saved -, maybe manual placement could work. I liked that single Jetpack added to the scheme, it might serve as a miniature life insurance, or on the other hand, can win you the game.

---

Mom Wars by lacoste

Game and weapon settings: It's a little odd just having one offensive weapon, but this is what makes the game what it is. Resources are scarce and this generally makes the game skillful.

Originality: It's pretty unique, the closest comparison would be holy war, since it's focused on one weapon and requires a lot of visualization with girder packs.

Over-all gameplay: A lot of thought is required for this scheme, since worms will take 2 hits to kill by brute force. Girder pack skills and creating/avoiding the perfect landscapes for plops with old ladies are crucial, as is utility conservation. The only downside to this scheme is that it's very 'blow-for-blow', you and your opponent will almost always make one decent hit per turn, which might give some advantage to the first player.

Casual fun: People looking for tons of weapons might not find this extremely entertaining, but it can definitely be played with multiple players.

Competitive fun: This is really a scheme for competition, it would be fun to play in tournaments, and I can tell it would foster high skill levels.


I can't really say much about this scheme. It's pretty straightforward. Playing it on random maps is a good idea, fitting to the scheme, but many players or worms tend to fill in the more obvious hiding spots. It requires skills with walking/jumping, strategic girder placement and timing your Old Women, which makes it not only a fun, but a challenging scheme as well. I'm not sure if I would change anything if it was for me.

---

Rubber Baseball by Ponty

Game and weapon settings: The weapon settings are all appropriate, though arrows seem unnecessary, since aside from scoring they could be used to block other players and cause general annoyance. The round time is a bit high after you get accustomed to the scheme, though it seemed about right for the first few turns.

Originality: Pretty darn original. Has elements of surf shoppers, but nothing's easily comparable.

Over-all gameplay: This scheme requires quite a bit of timing and has a skill set that no other scheme has, it takes a while to understand how hitting a moving worm with bat even works. The biggest annoyance here is the idea of scorekeeping with arrows; it should be entirely optional, and I think it can be treated as such since anyone playing the scheme would likely skip that aspect.

Casual fun: I wouldn't see this getting as popular as say, hysteria, but it could become a well known indie scheme. A number of people can play at once, seems like it can be a lot of fun.

Competitive fun: There aren't any obvious ways to cheat or simplify the gameplay; familiarity with a certain map might help slightly, but not much. You could genuinely host a tournament with this, though I doubt the skill level is high enough to make it a league scheme.


Despite the fact that batting a moving worm is tough, and switching to your other worm while skimming surely needs a lot of practice, the RW settings make up for this by letting you try again and again and again. I can imagine some people going all hardcore on the scheme and playing it without antisink. The idea itself is really new and I like it not because I like the scheme itself, but because I was thinking about a baseballing scheme before WSC, but I couldn't figure out a way to do it. The way this scheme is carried out is excellent. The score keeping system needs a bit of a tweak, though.

---

BOING by Peti

Game and weapon settings: Turn time makes sense, you can generally get 2 or 3 tries per turn. Or more once you gain better judgment in catching yourself after a weak toss. There's no need to change anything here.

Originality: There are a ton of goal-oriented games out there now, so the idea isn't amazingly new. But thinking of using bouncing mode in this way is creative enough to warrant a good enough score here.

Over-all gameplay: There's no need for rules here, and the guidelines of the game are incredibly simple. However, 'bouncing from' the red areas is a bit vague and will have to be amended, since you could really attach your rope far away and just touch a red area, leading to an easy toss into a goal. Quite a bit of finesse is required for tossing in this scheme, and your judgment needs to be very sharp to see where the bouncing worms will end up. There's plenty of skill potential in this scheme, as well as map-making potential. One could easily make a map lasting an hour, or 20 minutes.

Casual fun: Like bungee race or golf, any number of players works here. This scheme is really a roper's dream, since you can have a lot of fun trying different methods of bouncing to the goal, e.g. using outlaws, pumps, etc. Though even basic fling skills will usually be all you need.

Competitive fun: I can imagine certain goals will be easier if one has played them before, so that may be a slight detraction from competitive play. However even if you 'knew the method', your opponent could instantly copy you; the game's skill lies in judgment and rope finesse. I can definitely see this being played in tournies.


I admit I wasn't looking forward to this scheme, I couldn't imagine how bouncing worms to the goals would be fun. I was wrong. Oh, I was so wrong. Not only it proved to be difficult and challenging (both in a positive way of course), but there was so much fun in it I remember laughing out loud quite a few times. It has a lot of potential in the field of map making, and it most likely will catch on as a funner scheme - clearly this can't really be a competitive scheme, but that's no problem. Only one thing: the bouncing sound can become annoying after a while.

---

Mineball by Peti

Game and weapon settings: There isn't necessarily balance, though it's not attempting to be a default scheme, it's definitely a niche scheme. Certainly nothing unbalanced about it, at least. The turn time allows you to get quite a few shots off, but seeing how difficult mineball maps can be, I can't see reducing it any further.

Originality: The most similar idea might be plinko, hard to say. People have certainly enjoyed the combination of bats and mines before, but this scheme is its own thing. Though it does fall into the category of goal-based schemes like mine golf, the wormkit modes spice things up.

Over-all gameplay: The guidelines for playing are simple and easy to follow, no complicated rules or ambiguous situations to deal with, at least if the map is made right. Much like bungee race, boom race, etc, this scheme would target specific skills without much focus on strategy, which is perfectly fine.
Casual fun: Once again, BRs are apt comparisons. People would really enjoy this with any number of players, league or otherwise.

Competitive fun: Though probably not quite skillful enough to spawn its own league, this would surely be successul in tournament form.


As simple as it may sound - depending on the map of course - batting a mine into a hole can be really difficult. Golf and Holy Golf already explored this kind of gameplay, but Mineball managed to add to them by removing the one shot per turn limit. Generally, the game can drag long and it even become boring or annoying, but if played only for its funner value, it can provide a couple of laughs, and maybe even a slight increase in skills.

---

Hang'em High by EvilPunk

Game and weapon settings: The turn time is sufficient to crawl up one or two flights of girder packs and then box yourself in, seems reasonable. Longbows need to be limited though, since you can use them to send worms flying into the water within the first few turns.

Originality: Like many other schemes, this is essentially a race, though having to use girder packs is out of the ordinary, and the wormkit modes create some interesting situations.

Over-all gameplay: On the map I played, the level height was around 20,000 pixels, but for maps that high, it's fairly impossible for either team to actually reach the finish without finding it easier to simply kill the other team. Having freeze helps, but the expected map height should be closer to say, 5,000 pixels. The scheme is extremely battle oriented which may not have been its intent, but it does make things somewhat fun. Drowning should be much more difficult to accomplish, and I'm not sure water rise is needed at all. The biggest flaw in this scheme is probably that your opponent can always catch up to you, and can then almost always drown you.

Casual fun: It's fun seeing how high you can get, seeing how well you can box yourself in, and also taking advantage of your opponent's hard work.

Competitive fun: Unless some things about the scheme are changed, and some much lower maps are created, it's hard to say if this would be a good competitive scheme. The rules are simple enough, but it needs to be amended into a more race-oriented scheme to have long, competitive matches.


The map is either too tall for its width or too narrow for its height, but either way, it's too hard to plop worms from the higher regions. What I liked in it, though, is that the standing can change really quickly. Even though there is quite some time per turn, there's always something to be done and in the end you will always need that extra 2 seconds, so this scheme makes players not only think ahead, but execute their plans as fast as possible, which is a great skill in other schemes as well. Water rise may not be necessary, though.

---

Dangerous Water by CMV, GoGo, Peti

Game and weapon settings: For the kind of map I played, infinite girders did seem to be necessary. But when torch and drill are the only means of making holes, blocking does become a sticky issue. There should probably be more than one LG (if maps are intended to be slightly unwalkable at times), and the number of weapons available to use for retreat time is pretty unncesessary.

Originality: Not particularly original, this is another game that involves getting from start to finish, kind of like battle race. And unlike Hang 'em High, there are no majorly distinguishing features to add to the originality.

Over-all gameplay: Blocking with girders is kind of an annoying issue, but there aren't any rule flaws really, simple enough to play. On the whole though, this strikes me as a battle race with very simple obstacles. There isn't much thought required or even strategy with girder placement, you simply continue walking as efficiently as possible. This scheme seems fairly low in skill and situational variety, to the point where it's not very fun.

Casual fun: The only way this scheme could be made fun is if fairly innovative maps were made. But unless the simple map style were completely abandoned, I don't see this scheme getting past being a long, uneventful walk.

Competitive fun: I doubt there is enough skill or fun in this scheme to attract competition. While you do have to be efficient in your jumping, you never need to pull off any difficult jumps.


Even though this jumping-walking-chuting kind of race has been explored before, adding SD gives a little spice to it. Given the good map, it might even become challenging for experienced players as well, but there's a risk of learning the fastest route for each map, thus reducing the competitive factor. However, I found no real use for the weapons - clearly they are only there for the additional seconds, but I think the same effect could have been achieved by just adding a couple of seconds to the turn time. Other than that I found them annoying, since the player can accidentally fire them, losing their turns in the process.

---

Pinball by Vaguener2

Game and weapon settings: Just having grenades is a tad boring, and there really doesn't need to be any retreat time, since there's almost no way to use it. It also wouldn't hurt to have a few less mines just to be able to move around at the start. The grenades are also a bit too powerful to aim any individual mines precisely.

Originality: This is almost an exact replica of another scheme that's been played in the Worm Olympics, but it contained arrows and minigun. Also pretty similar to BnA.

Over-all gameplay: With random placement, and the inherent luck of hundreds of mines bouncing around, there isn't a lot of skill or strategy here. BnG skill is necessary, but most of your kills will end up being the result of mine luck. But it is simple to play, and rounds move at a good pace, it's still a fun enough scheme.

Casual fun: This scheme can work with any number of people, and since seeing worms fly in absurd directions is part of the fun, it almost works better with more players.

Competitive fun: This scheme would work well enough in tournaments, since there aren't any complex rules, maps are easy to make, and rounds can go by quickly. But of course, the skill level wouldn't be too high.


This is a cute BnA/Mine Madness variant, with a taste of BnG I immediately felt while playing. The best thing I found in it was how awesome whots can be made by using the nade and blowing away a certain mine, right into the face of an opponent worm - that alone entitles this scheme for tournament play, in my book.

---

Red Green Blue by Wolverine

Game and weapon settings: Fairly balanced weapons, with nothing too huge or game-destroying.

Originality: It's definitely an original game mode, not because it offers an original arsenal of weapons or has original rules, but mainly because it brings about new kinds of strategies, where you can't simply attack the opponent's worms willy-nilly.

Over-all gameplay: The premise of the scheme is almost overly complex; simply having two teams would be enough to accomplish the idea. And being restricted to certain weapons is a bit of a hassle, as well as a liability for cowing. One of the biggest annoyances is turn order, since one team can end up going three times in a row, and this can get tiresome. In addition, to play the game fluidly, a person needs to have three teams with worm names they remember, which is yet another hurdle to playing. There is a fair amount of strategy in this scheme, and it requires some unique mind-bending, but there are too many minor annoyances for it to be very appealing.

Casual fun: This scheme isn't very easy to just pick up, since in addition to understanding the rules, it's hard to identify who you need to attack, and which weapons you're allowed to use. It's not really built for fun on the first play.

Competitive fun: If people were to get into this scheme, I'm sure a reasonably high level of skill would emerge, but it doesn't seem like it would catch on, simply because of the fun factor. And there's a fairly high potential for ties, so I'm not sure this would do well in tournies.


I hate to admit it but I felt a bit of a letdown when playing this scheme, due to the continuous skipfest. The idea is unique, the weapons and game settings are good, but I still didn't feel that "Oh, let's do this again!" feeling at the end of my games. On the contrary, I didn't feel like playing one more immediately, just some time later. It might be good as a funner scheme, for those who can get over the skippings, but it would certainly make things harder on a competitive level.

---

Ping Pong by Minhoco

Game and weapon settings: Turn time works, the rounds can be a bit long. The weapons, aside from HHG, are overpowered, so much so that the game becomes very crate dependent.

Originality: This scheme is essentially a version of forts with a very specific kind of map. It does make use of HHG more than most schemes, but this isn't filling any gaps in the scheme spectrum.

Over-all gameplay: Having no rules makes the game easy to play. Tossing the HHG on a bumpy terrain requires a fair amount of skill, but there's also a great deal of randomness, since even a tiny miscalculation can cause the HHG to bounce far away. HHG skill is unfortunately dwarfed by crate luck; the scheme would benefit from no airstrikes and no homing missile, and lower powered weapons. It works well for 2v2 and 1v1, but I feel most people would prefer forts to this game.

Casual fun: There's a fair amount of fun to be had in this scheme, but rounds can really drag on. And simply throwing HHG for most turns gets fairly old, there's not much variety in gameplay.

Competitive fun: This scheme could work in tournaments, but there isn't a great deal of strategy or skill involved, and I imagine it's not quite fun enough to get most people interested in competition.


I have mixed feelings towards this scheme. It's really fun and entertaining and it requires basically only the skill to shoot a HHG, but on the other hand once gaining the upper hand, you have to be really a klutz to lose the game, or if you are losing, it requires not only mad skillz but a lot of luck too to be able to win. The crates' contents make the weaponry quite unbalanced, and when you have just a few worms, it's practically impossible to reach a health crate on the other side of the field, which makes it all the harder. Maybe the addition of (limited) Jetpacks for "inland" travel might add to the game. I also got puzzled over one thing: what to do if an opponent worm gets blown over to your terrain?

---

Shopper for Weapons by Wolverine

Game and weapon settings: It's about as balanced as a WfW, you won't get any extremely powerful weapons. Nothing to change here.

Originality: This is just a variant of WfW, so a person might validly ask why it's a necessary scheme at all. It's another one of those 'perform several tasks before being able to attack' shopper schemes.

Over-all gameplay: The rules aren't too complicated, especially since they're ones most wormers are familiar with. Like shopper, there isn't a lot of room for strategy, you just get a crate and do your best with it, which can be satisfying enough for a lot of people. Map memorization would give someone a bit of an advantage, but not any more than it would in regular WfW. The gameplay is about the same as a regular shopper, it simply takes a little longer to use your weapon.

Casual fun: Seems like a good scheme for messing around with friends; several people can play. Once again, the fun factor is pretty much the same as shopper.

Competitive fun: I feel the added step of touching a weapon square is probably more interesting in a competitive setting, since you really feel the squeeze of a shopper with less time to attack. You could at least host a successful tourney with this scheme.


While compared to regular Shopper, the slight addition of WfW elements makes it a lot more interesting, it's not more interesting than a WxW or a Flyshopper. Slight changes to the rules might make things a bit harder, thus more enjoyable for the skilled players, and more of a challenge to the not-yet-skilled ones. Other than that, the idea is good, although it bears a lot of resemblance to Rope for Weapons.

---

Deathmatch42 by HHC

Game and weapon settings: Nothing to complain about here, we have the usual assortment of weapons for a default scheme, infinite zook, f3 and f4 weaps. Only two ropes which gives solid balance.

Originality: This scheme is way too much like elite. Though all its differences seem to contribute to a lower skill level than elite; full power ropes, 30 sec turns, and random placement without a high enough number of worms to cancel out the luck factor. It definitely does not offer much that other schemes don't already cover.

Over-all gameplay: The lack of rules is a plus. Strategically, pretty much the same as elite, with high importance placed on skunking and using turn advantage.

Casual fun: Essentially no one plays elite ffa games, so it's similarly unlikely many people would find this particularly fun unless played 1v1 or 2v2.

Competitive fun: Likewise, this would certainly work as a league scheme, but there's no real point when elite has all the same gameplay elements.


This scheme was too normal for me, I have to admit that. Nothing new on the table, just the Inetrnal scheme, tweaked a bit in order to make it more challenging when played against the CPU. And at that, it turned out great, I have to admit that too. Despite the somewhat boring sounding name, the game is a lot more intense due to the limited amount of ropes and the like. However, some of the aspects of the scheme should have been even more restricted. Although then, the scheme's name would ne Elite, I have to admit that too.

---

Fly-Atack by Vaguener2

Game and weapon settings: The weapons in this scheme don't seem particularly well tested; a lot more skill would be required if zooks and nades were included, and dynas were limited. Destructible land doesn't seem all that necessary, and there really needs to be manual placement. Definitely kudos for a rope scheme with no chute though.

Originality: It has a fairly unique rule, and only a single rule at that, so it's not exactly a variant of anything. Plenty of originality here.

Over-all gameplay: It's nice to see a scheme with one simple rule. The gameplay can be kind of strategic in terms of hides, since you need to plan out where you'll hang from rope at the end of the turn. On many maps, one can simply attach the rope in place instead of fly, but this difficulty can be bypassed if, for example, you use a map with no ceiling but only some pixels hanging overhead. This is an excellent idea that is slightly ruined by factors such as lack of manual placement, and weapon selection.

Casual fun: Even as it is, this scheme can be pretty fun casually. People can try some really difficult fly-drops, and it's a very underutilized skill.

Competitive fun: As mentioned, lack of manual placement creates too many piling situations. And with infinite dyna, that creates too big of a problem to play this game competitively.


Simplistic and straightforward. Even though it doesn't really require new skills for playing, it utilizes a lesser used skill, dropping during flight. And dropping correctly, at least how it's supposed to go. The bad part in the scheme is that with infinite dynamites, the aiming is not really important, unless one wasn't to win the game in a short time. Otherwise, it's a simple rope-and-drop scheme, nothing else.

---

Fly-Forts by Vaguener2

Game and weapon settings: The turn times and weapon settings seem reasonable, although the cows and ming vase were never used, rounds were simply over too quickly.

Originality: There are quite a few schemes involving flying, but having to drop in midair is original enough.

Over-all gameplay: Mapmaking seems like a huge problem for this scheme, there needs to be some way of having less water to keep worms from dying incredibly easily. As it is, it's pretty likely for at least one of your worms to die while attempting to attack, unless you're playing very seriously / competitively. The rules are a bit vague, for example it's not clear if you can release a weapon from chute if you've touched the side of an opponent's fort. There is some skill needed in dropping, but the most important factor is definitely hiding. And there seems to be a number of spots that are unhittable, unless you want to sacrifice your own worm to make a kill.

Casual fun: It's fairly fun to practice dropping weapons in the air; as long as you don't have to think about anything else, this scheme can be somewhat enjoyable. However, it's a bit frustrating how often a worm will plop after attacking, games can go by very quickly.

Competitive fun: I can imagine there will be too many stalemate situations in a competitive game, where players are unwilling to attack due to the opponent's hides, and the necessity of sacrificing your worm to make a kill. The scheme is also fairly map dependent, and I can't imagine very many people producing maps for this scheme.


Being the parent scheme of Fly-Atack, the premise is the same, and so are the good and bad aspects. Mostly. There is one more bad aspect, and that is the part that makes it "Fort". It's a somewhat silly rule that's not easy to follow but really easy to forget, thus making cowing rather easy. I admit I have cowed a lot when playing this scheme, because I simply forgot about forting. I don't think it should be needed for the game.

---

Teleshop by Minhoco

Game and weapon settings: Crates should have 100% probability of falling each turn to make them more useful. Though even still, there's very little reason to waste a turn collecting a crate when clusters are sufficient for most attacks, and will presumably be better than the average crate you get. Turn time should be significantly reduced since it's an anchored scheme, even 1 to 5 seconds would make sense and would lead to shorter rounds. Also, having essentially only one useful weapon makes the game a bit boring.

Originality: It's original enough, but it basically just uses all the elements of BnG; anchored worms and tossing skills.

Over-all gameplay: Strategic possibilites for this scheme seem very map-dependent. And speaking of which, it would be fairly annoying to create maps for this scheme, it would've been nice if the author found a random map type that was playable. Not unlike hysteria, you do have to choose where you teleport, but you generally have to be open to your opponent while they are also open to you. Aside from this, there's not much strategic thought involved. Most skill in this scheme involves tossing clusters, but there's a huge amount of luck in where they land. This sort of makes the scheme a much less interesting version of BnG.

Casual fun: Rounds don't drag on forever, but it does become very trite seeing people throw clusters each and every turn, with the occasional crate weapon. And when more players play, the unusually long turn time leads to more waiting than necessary.

Competitive fun: There's too much luck involved in tossing clusters to really consider this for a league or tournament scheme, and it needs a more standardized kind of map to even be playable competitively.


Even though Teleshop was fun, it was fun as a "hurt others with your overpowered clusters" scheme, but that's completely besides the idea of shopping. Basically, the game can be played without ever getting a single weapon crate, and you can win like that for sure. Weaker clusters or more powerful ammo in the crates - or even a less strict teleporting rule - could have made this scheme a lot more entertaining, but it didn't.

---

Archery by Casso

Game and weapon settings: The only relevant parameter here is turn time, and it's reasonable as it is. It could be made shorter, and that would make it much more difficult to use notching or a piece of paper on the screen (and make it more difficult in general), but people have to take time to judge their shot either way.

Originality: A simple idea, hasn't quite been done before. There are a number of games where you aim for targets in one way or another, but nothing I know of involving arrows.

Over-all gameplay: It's relatively quick and fun, and when targets are far away, there's really some skill involved. It remains to be seen how varied and interesting mapmaking can be for this scheme, but it seems like there may be a lot of possibilities here.

Casual fun: This does seem to be the kind of scheme you'd only want to play occasionally, it's fun in small doses. Mainly just because there's not a lot of action, only aiming and shooting. Unanchored worms might add to the fun.

Competitive fun: Due to notching as well as using paper to aim, this scheme would get fairly dull in a tournament or league, with everyone getting perfect scores each time. I don't think there's any way to counter this.


The idea is pretty unique, that's for sure. But the overall feeling of the game is really dependant on the map. However, there are other bad aspects of the game, for example, why make it a rule to keep scores on the map itself if you can just use the chat? Also, the arrows will eventually clutter the target even if there's one table per player. I guess this scheme was meant to be used with Plutonic's IndiMask extension. Other than that, a little funner scheme which I will most likely play every now and then.

---

Save the Worms by sLuG

Game and weapon settings: The turn time could be shorter if the levels were more simplified. And testuff really seems unnecessary, since you could release a sheep and then launch yourself. Aside from that, no real issues in terms of any weapons being unbalanced.

Originality: It's a cool idea, and doesn't really exist in other schemes, although landing in score pots has been done before.

Over-all gameplay: This is another scheme promoting a specific skill, namely the ability to accurately launch your worm with SS once it's in the air, and I'm sure this takes some time to develop. However, this skill factor is dampened by the unseeable locations of the score pots; even if you developed expert aiming, the margin of error is too great and it's not much different than plinko or russian roulette. And both of those schemes are fun in their own right, but this one requires a bit of a procedure just to launch yourself.

Casual fun: I can see this being played once in a while as a funner, but it's quite a hassle to get used to, and doesn't really pay off. With this kind of randomness, most people could definitely just play another simpler scheme like plinko.

Competitive fun: It would be hard to even host a tourney for this scheme, and it's neither fun enough nor skillful enough to promote any kind of league play.


The idea is great. The method of realizing that is awful. At least how I interpreted the instructions. It's basically impossible to hit a flying worm with a super sheep, even if the worm is flying with the chute. Maybe it may be better if the worm could get slower or something.

---

Get Frank by Peja, philie

Game and weapon settings: There seem to be many unnecessary weapons in crates, such as napalm and prod, when every crate is pretty crucial. And there should at least be one crate drop per turn. The turn time is so-so, it almost doesn't matter how much you have, since you'll rarely be able to get a crate before attacking.

Originality: It seems fairly original, though there have been other schemes with the idea of delegating certain tasks to individual worms or teams.

Over-all gameplay: This scheme is incredibly boring, mainly because CBA is impossible most of the time. And the best strategy would probably consist of avoiding most of the 'frank' team's worms, and simply waiting for them to drown. The rules are way too complicated to easily pick up the scheme on the first try, and most of them seem a bit arbitrary. It is also incredibly hard to find an ideal map for this scheme, though even when you do, you'll find that most turns for either team will consist of doing nothing.

Casual fun: I highly doubt anyone will have fun playing this scheme with more than two players, because even 1v1, the level of patience necessary is fairly absurd; there is simply too much waiting without attacking involved. Things are a bit more active for the 'frank' team, but still dull, with only 1 worm able to use rope.

Competitive fun: Definitely more suited for 1v1 play, however, games drag on for at least 30 minutes, most of which involves waiting.


The idea is not really original, it's a modified Tower Race, and it's not the first time a specific worm is granted certain abilities. It's not really fast either, because the worms will always have to hunt around for crates, because Tower Race maps are huge. The rules are really hard to follow, and the gameplay tends to drag on, which is not too great. Sometimes, the game has little bright flashes of cool, but sadly, those times are rare. With smaller maps, this scheme could catch on easily. And maybe with simpler rules.

---

Airborne Worms by BBalu95

Game and weapon settings: Though you get ropes later in the game, you seem to get a few too many, allowing you to touch the opponent's wall and then hide once more, which is almost too much of an advantage if you happen to get invisibility. And crates are a bit annoying, since it's generally too difficult to collect them, and some can wildly change the outcome of the game.

Originality: Basically like forts or CTF with convoluted rules, nothing particularly new here.

Over-all gameplay: There are too many ambiguous/unmentioned rules here, for example, does a person need to immediately create a new floor with girders if their opponents are the ones who set off a mine and destroyed it? If the floor has been mostly destroyed with a mine, which part do you touch? Does killing all of the other team result in a draw? If so, it seems that almost every game would result in a draw. The idea of this game seems to be a bit of planning and then an invasion, but given that you need to take an extra turn after touching the opponent's floor, there's basically no way to win unless you're using a much different type of map than the ones provided by the scheme creator.

Casual fun: This scheme isn't exciting since there's no real way to formulate a strategy; you can't expect to successfully stay on your opponent's island for a turn without getting killed.

Competitive fun: This scheme isn't going to work competitively, with so many vague rules. And there simply isn't enough room for strategy to make this a successful competitive scheme; there's far too much draw potential.


Overly complicated and unplayable. That's, regrettably, all I can say. The rules are vague, there are a lot of situations where the jury members didn't even know what to do, and there was little originality in the game.