The results were based on an overall average of the scores given in all categories by the judges submitting forms. Not all judges submitted forms on all games, but it broke down pretty evenly.
In the results, the first number is the overall average, and the number in parentheses is the average of the scores by the core 3-judge panel that rated each game. You can click on each game listed and go to the detailed judging forms and comments for each game.
| #1 | The Shining | 7.4 | (7.87) | Matt Nadelhaft |
| #2 | Candidate | 7.25 | (7.3) | Lindsey Dubb |
| #3 | Glider Pit Gladiators | 7.16 | (7.53) | Joe Scoleri |
| #4 | Itty Bitty Battles | 6.57 | (7.2) | Walter O'Hara |
| Judge: Frank |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found the idea of up/down draft to be cool, but the implementation seems a little off. Also, the way you hit the 'wall' of the arena seems tacked on after the fact. Not to polished. | Cool idea, never seen anything like it before. | Good balance, again the draft system helps out with the balance and it seems there is no sure-fire method to win each time. | Could be re-written. 'Nuff said. | Fun, for a play or two. But until it gets polished I wouldn't think it would be out on the table much. |
|
|
Great idea, and an adequate system. A little muddy in the presentaion, but I would like to see it built upon. | ||||
| Judge: Eagle |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lots of things to keep track of, but rather easily done on the map board (just don't sneeze!) | One word, "WOW" | Everyone nearly has an equal chance. Would hate to see a victory determined by "who got the draft" | Lots of reference charts & very little head scratching. One read thru & one sample game was all it took. | This is the one we kept coming back to time after time |
|
|
|||||
| Judge: Djar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Too much table referencing. I think it could have been more simplified. | Gladiator type games are not highly original. I would have liked to see some background or scenarios dealing with a background. | Works pretty well. | Rules could be written a little better and shortened. | Fun Game! |
|
|
Reminds me of Sky Galleons of Mars in some ways. | ||||
| Judge: Xenopus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The turn sequence was clear. No records needed to be kept. The gliding mechanics were simple. Attacks were straightforward. There was no "best weapon" or "best maneuver." There was a bit of table lookup, though nothing cumbersome. The air current mechanism, though simple, had odd implications for game play. (i.e., why should I want to have the _lowest_ glider?) Same goes for the turn order mechanism. There were a few rules -- such as the differences in turning ability -- that were tied to specific speeds, which took a while to remember. | The gliding mechanics -- which were central to the game -- were unusual but worked extremely well with just a few simple rules. The goal of the game -- essentially, conservation of energy -- was a new one for me. | This was a symmetric game, so clearly the sides were even. I think it's fair, though, to use this category to address the degree to which player skill determines the outcome. Getting in a good position for an attack was tricky and interesting. Unfortunately, the air currents tended to negate any height advantages gained through good play, making luck a large factor. (Gliding into the central region of the map wasn't enough to get rid of this effect.) | The rules were very thorough -- all of my questions about the game were answered in rulebook. They were, however, pretty dry. The effects of netting and stun were scattered, which made a certain amount of paging through the rules necessary. | This was a fun game. I don't tend to enjoy air games, but this one was quite nice. It's necessary to think quite a bit in advance in order to get into position for the attack. The turn order rule was a bit strange, but it did make for some interesting jockeying for position. The main blemish seemed to be the air current rules, which seem to predominate over the effects of the players' tactics. This could be fixed pretty easily, though. |
|
|
On the whole, a very nice game. It gained, I think, from its focus on a single mechanic (the gliding). A few possible changes to the air current rules: Determine air current locations completely at random. Have only one air current per turn. Determine air currents one turn in advance. | ||||
| Judge: Galron |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rules are clear enough, but the bookeeping and importance of altitude and facing make this game a bit cumbersome | The basic "flight sim" topic isn't too new, nor the approaches to accounting for the 3D nature versus 2D components, but I liked the specific topic and the need to account for the energy/maneuver balance. | No inheirently unbalanced features at the outset. Limited number of replays prevents me from determining if there is a systemic unbalance (or magic strategy). | The rules are organised pretty well, but the bookkeeping of altitude, speed and facing make it more difficult to know where your opponent is. | A bit too much bookeeping for a beer and pretzels and not enough depth of options to represent a simulation or add-on to an RPG. I like the fact that solitaire play is possible. |
|
|
The topic is interesting, but the mechanics are a bit stilted and it really needs to part of a broader system with more options. | ||||
| Judge: Frank |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great tactical system. However, there is a serious problem w/ scale in regards to spell effect, scouts, etc. But then I remembered this is a Fantasy Game and *very* playable system. | Would have been a 5, except for the cool spells. (love to see this area expanded) | With the gold buying of armies (brilliant idea), this becomes a grand operational game of chess. All I can say it's about time! | Well written and very good CRT. | Oh yeah, did I say this is FUN! Well it is. Hell, I'd *buy* this game. |
|
|
Great game. With just a bit more testing and expansion in areas this could be out on my gaming table for a long time. | ||||
| Judge: Eagle |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seen it around - a lot | well written | it is great to be able to choose your own forces instead of being stuck with units you dislike | ||
|
|
|||||
| Judge: Galron |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Straightforward and not too innovative. No real problems, either. | While it's interesting to try this level of combat in a "microgame" format, I don't see this as too different from other combat system for miniatures. | No inheirently unbalanced features at the outset, but can be made so by set-up | Tries too much in too little space. | Essentially a simplified miniatures wargame system. |
|
|
This game makes a good add-on to a fantasy system (AD&D) but doesn't stand up too well on its own. If the magic was removed and th ecombat detail increased, it would be much better. | ||||
| Judge: Xenopus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The turn sequence was complicated and sometimes confusing. It was often necessary to remember the attacks and moves that a unit conducted, since there are modifiers based on this. Hidden movement could be cumbersome in larger battles. | This is essentially a standard wargame, with a few twists. Having a magic system tied in with the combat system could be fun (though I didn't play any games that involved a lot of magic). The treatment of formations is interesting, and might work out well after a better explanation. The action order and activation systems are unusual, and have a good effect on tactics. It does add a pretty large chance element, though. | Since this is a "plug in the battle" game, the balance naturally depends on the scenario. But in general, neither attack nor defense seemed overly powerful. The introductory scenario seemed a bit biased toward the Rotwangi, though. | The rules attempted to cover too much. Some important rules were missing. For example: is it possible to switch units between formations? Are attacks made against single units, all the units in a stack, or multiple stacks? Though the first section of the rules (describing the unit types) was good, the movement, combat, and magic sections did not describe the game clearly or in adequate detail. Some of the rules complications, such as the complex combat order, or the many rules exceptions for spearmen, could probably have been removed. | Unfortunately, difficulties with the rules made play a bit of drag. The game itself, though, could be fun. The widely differing abilities of the unit types do add interest to play. |
|
|
I'd like to play this game again once its rules have been reedited. Perhaps the microgame format was a bit too restrictive for this design -- some extra length to the rules would probably help. As it stood, though, the game was a bit too difficult to play. | ||||
| Judge: Maverick |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A bit too cumbersome and complex for the end result... the variety of units and available options feel more suited to a Great Big Battle. For a "generic" fantasy micro game I'd prefer to see things streamlined a bit more. As it is, the game seems to have some sort of detailed background that is being kept hidden from the players. If this were made part of the game, then the high level of detail might have more of a pay off... | Operational/tactical fantasy games aren't one of the genres I've studied closely, but there are some good ideas here that I haven't seen used in this type of game before. | Not rated, see general comments below. | The rules need blindtesting! The rules presentation and illustrations were well done and helpful though. | Not rated, see general comments below. |
|
|
After a few runs through the rulebook (and many notes), I balked at playing this game for a couple of reasons. First, I doubted that I would end up playing the game the author intended without having him here to point me in the right direction regarding the rules. Second, this game is really still a work in progress. It attempts to stretch things a little too far in its schizophrenic battle between micro status and full-blown game status. I suggest that the latter approach be taken and that the game be distributed to playtest groups for blind testing and comments regarding the rules and mechanics (and I would be happy be one of the volunteers!) | ||||
| Judge: Djar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fantasy micro-boardgame with some decent mechanics. | Well... It really has been done by the SPI team before... and others. | Decent set of rules. Pretty readable | Was fun, but it misses something | |
|
|
|||||
| Judge: Eagle |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very s-m-o-o-t-h. Lots of varied units to keep track of but excellent charts helped | Seems like every good movie breeds a game "spin-off". However, few of them are horror movies | In play testing, one side seemed to win a lot. I won't say which. Don't want to influence anyone | Had to hunt & peck to get a couple of rulings | Bonus point given here because you did NOT need to be intimately familular with the movie to enjoy it. I never saw it start - finish |
|
|
|||||
| Judge: Galron |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty straightforward but the differences in area movement and hex movement may be distracting. | Like the topic and the treatment. The "hidden" movement of the animals is a nice touch | No inheirently unbalanced features at the outset. Limited number of replays prevents me from determining if there is a systemic unbalance (or magic strategy). | The organization of the rules could be better. Topics are not grouped clearly. Information can be hard to find. | Like the fact that solitaire play is possible. |
|
|
Neat topic and interesting treatment of it. | ||||
| Judge: Djar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems the play is good | Turning something like this into a microgame is interesting, even if it is inspired from a King Novel. | I rather play be the evil player | Reads like a Metagame ;) | 'nuff said... Love it... |
|
|
Great Presentation even with two maps. | ||||
| Judge: Xenopus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+: There were few counters to keep track of. Game flow was straightforward. -: Some game effects are tied to the turn number. The boiler's effect on victory is odd -- my tendency when behind as the hotel is to make it blow by playing elevator shuffle. The weapons (except perhaps for an early game gasoline attack) seem useless, since physical attacks can't be made on the phantoms, and going hand-to-hand with the topiary is suicidal. The combat mechanisms were simple, but there were enough different kinds of combat that keeping track of them was sometimes difficult. The map is too big for the contest. | The theme is interesting and unusual. There is some good "chrome", such as the immobile hedges early in the game. The activity point mechanism (in which the points are spread between movement and attack) is very nice. It's simple and works quite well. | Both sides have a good chance at victory -- but so much rests on the fate of Danny that a few attack rolls by and against him seem to determine the game. | The rules were enjoyable to read. Some topics weren't covered well enough. The timing of the elevator's movement, for example. Does lack of ZOCs imply that units can walk through one another? Probably, but it wasn't obvious from the rules. The differences between phantoms, family, and topiary were scattered throughout the rules. | A cool theme -- my favorite among the entrants. There appeared to be a 'best strategy' for family: ignore the weapons, stay inside after the first few turns, and have Danny and the phantoms duke it out. The basement is the best place to do so since the phantoms' physical attacks against Danny are less effective, there. If you can take out one phantom at a time, you win. There isn't a lot of room for tactics with this plan, though -- it's pretty much a dice game. |
|
|
Art is top-notch, better than some commercial games. Danny is central to the game -- which is fitting, of course. But there didn't seem to be a lot of decisions to make with him. The elevator manipulation was interesting, but it seemed out of place in a horror game. | ||||
| Judge: Eagle |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smooth, lots of stuff to keep track of | i've actually seen games based on this premise before | some lucky "draws from the pot" involved | took a few readings to get the rules down | pure, delightful cut-throat action |
|
|
|||||
| Judge: Galron |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the play is straightforward, but the book keeping will slow the game down substantailly. | Not just the political concept, but the raw cynicism appeals to me greatly. | No inheirently unbalanced features at the outset. Limited number of replays prevents me from determining if there is a systemic unbalance (or magic strategy). | The value/purpose of the Public Opinion counters isn't quite clear enough given their importance. | Played with 2 but believe it would be much more fun with more people. Solitaire play is nil. Inheirent in the system, but unfortunate. |
|
|
Like the fact it is not essentially a combat game. Allows a broader audience, including my wife. | ||||
| Judge: Maverick |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The game play is straightforward and fairly smooth until you get to a primary. We came up with a calculation card/form to make the tallying a little less onerous. At times the possibility of mistaken calculations dragged the process out a little more as the primary candidate checked, double checked, etc. Of course, election errors and delays add to the realism, right? | I am not familiar with the other games on elections (I know there are several out there), but I like the work put into coming up with the topical slogans. That tips the originality scale for me. | Having played only with two-players, there were those games where the "luck of the draw" always seemed to be against you. Other than having a streak of bad luck, things were pretty even. | Most of the concepts were pretty clear before the game was played. Well done. | To be fair, this isn't my kind of game. My best compliment in this categoriy is that I did enjoy trying it out. The changing values of the various political assets made for some interesting changes, but the tactics don't vary as much. The interaction between the variable factors won't keep me coming back again and again, but I could see people who enjoy this type of game getting into it. |
|
|
A good looking product, excellent rules layout and components. The game shows a good cynical insight into the political process (having just participated in a local campaign, I was a bit horrified to see I was going to be playing an election game!) I did not get to play it with a large group and hope some of the other judges got to see what the game had to offer in that setting. I definitely plan to try this out with a large group if I get the chance. | ||||
| Judge: Djar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to play well | Another politial-type game... | Again... I only played this a few times over the last couple of weeks but my gut tells me the balance is off, since the person who pulls ahead usually wins. | Decent set of rules. Pretty readable | Not really my cup of tea, nor Kathy's. |
|
|
|||||