1) CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE INCORPORATION OF RULES (1-10): 9
Feedback:
Steel, and Law were solidly used, Team excellently so. The time limit of 10 x 1 are justified well through the procession of play and the advancement through the Salles. I think I would personally prefer playing fewer and longer sessions, but that doesn't mean that Josh didn't do exactly what he was supposed to do in the gamechef rules. I would suggest outside of the constraints of gamechef that the session pattern might be lifted as the game moves on to publication (1 hour round-ups with the ability to play multiple months back to back).
2) CLARITY (1-10): 7
Feedback:
Some of the examples of play are actually frustrating because they make you have to break up the read to go and understand what's being explained. If you're introducing new jargon, explain it in the text of the example. E.g. on page 3:
"leaving three points for buying an advanced maneuver to start with. For that, she'll need to pick a Salle, and looks them over. The Viseux Diesé immediately appeals, and Glisé seems appropriately hotheaded for that first advanced maneuver."
If the point of the example is to clarify, then the example should contain all information needed to understand what's being said. I shouldn't have to go all the way to page 14 to know that Viseux Diesé appeals because the students of the Salle are "ambitious and eager to prove their mettle". It should give me an indication why right there... easing me into the jargon you're using. This is especially important because you're using another language, which isn't going to lend itself to intuitive understanding for most readers. You need to explain fencing maneuvers and combat like the person reading it is a complete newb to the sport. (Also small note, you say there is a Salles section below on page 2, but it's not "below" until page 14)
Also when doing examples of play, though it may seem redundant, express all actions that are going on. For example, in the creating criminals on pg 5, you start off well:
"She creates four Criminals (Session Number 3, plus 1), ..."
Because you have said what she has done, and why. But then you start to forget to explain...
"...She rolls a d12 for each, rolling a 3, a 5, a 9, and an 8. The first three Criminals are untrained in the sword, and she simply adds their die results to their Wills to get 9, 11, and 15, respectively. The first two will be runners; the 15 will stand and fight. ..."
Why are the first three criminals untrained in the sword (well, because they are odd numbers of course, but I have to go back up to the game text to find out why)? What makes the last one special? Well, because his Will is greater than twice his fear, but again, I had to go back to find out.
"She rolls the d12 five times for her five Criminals -- 2, 4, 5, 6, and 11 -- and adds the result to 8, getting their starting Positions as 10, 12, 13, 14, and 19. The Criminal at 19 will start within Close Quarters of the Watchmen."
Why will the criminal be at Close Quarters to the Watchmen? Well. because the Watchmen start at 20, but I won't find that out for three more pages ( Page 8 )
Overall, your rules are explained very well, but the organization of the game needs to be overhauled and your examples need to be tightened and clarified.
3) COMPLETENESS (1-10): 8
Feedback:
I suspect it would help a lot to keep track of things in game if there were such a thing as a positions board, where the Sentry and the players could keep track of the positions they were in using some kind of marker (coins, beads, something) to illustrate how far away everybody was.
All of your components are there and tight, though sometimes it is hard to visualize how things are happening. More and better examples, as well as a section that illustrates some strategy would be really helpful. It would also be good if the maneuvers themselves were described more descriptively so that non-fencers would be able to draw on the descriptions to add colour to their narrations in game.
4) ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS IN PLAY (1-10):8
Feedback:
Question: so I've chosen my maneuver and I've determined my score, and I win. I then narrate the conflict and outcome. Who narrates when I lose? Me or the Sentry?
There is no mechanism in place that discourages or forbids players from using the same pattern of maneuvers in any combat initiated (I.e. I always start a fight with a feint). Instead, it actually behooves a player to be as predictable as possible in order to earn team points. Does that maximize fun and make the game more swashbuckly? If not, is there a design intent behind this?
From what I can tell, the game could be played right now, and it could be fun, but my sense is that I would be floundering for some time before I felt comfortable in play. I am left after reading it not really comprehending how I am supposed to anticipate my teammate's actions, though I also get the sense that this would be much clearer if I had a background in fencing. As most of the audience will not, that's a clear indication that although your system's tight, your explanation and exploration need more work.
5) SWING VOTE (1-10): 8
Final Feedback:
I think that the comparing maneuvers idea is a nifty one, and pretty original. I think that it could be a lot of fun played in more concentrated sessions. I like that there is an emphasis on teamwork and might have chosen the 8 hours, however many sessions you want option instead of the 10x1. More emphasis and explanations will help to illustrate it, and there should be more dialogue in may of the examples to give people a flow, feel and tone to enter into play.
I really like that all the PC's have an relationship with one of the known criminals. I like that they get points when that criminal escapes, and even more points when the criminal and the hated crime intertwine.
Good work Josh, very interesting idea, and not much away from publication!
TOTAL SCORE (add items 1 through 5, above): 40