Thanks. I was tired of normal games being too much depending on luck, as players tend to attack the leader, at least if it is a big lead. So I wanted a game where the best player would win more often than usual.
In a 4-player game, it would be red vs. blue, and green vs. purple (or some other colour). As collateral damage was allowed, it was a good idea to stay away from the non-enemy worms.
There was a big advantage in winning your duel first, as you could attack the remaining players, but they couldn´t attack you. 
And it was a good idea to attack the player who was leading the duel, so whoever won the 2nd duel wouldn´t have much left.
In a 3-player game, red could only attack blue, blue could only attack green and green could only attack red (collateral damage still allowed). The better you were at attacking your enemy whilst defending yourself from the 3rd player, the better were your chances if you became one of the two remaining players.
Very interesting rule, I think I'll gonna try it one day I play Intermediate FFA with known people. Free For All is good to play with beginners. Maybe that rule could make the game more funny, I don't know, only trying to see. But trying will probably be interesting just because is something different.
I think some schemes of this game should receive a
referee, I know that all rules can be one day coded and the referee could be obsolete for a scheme. This game is about creating many game modes, like Super Mario World Hacks (that I like to compare with Races in WA), but in a different way, sometimes as a battle, sometimes as a Board Game since this game is turn based... So, a game where there are thousands of different schemes constantly being created and there is not a big company supporting it to receive big updates every week, means that it is very hard to schemes receive programmed rules (the ideal)... So, referees could be very useful in this kind of game maintained and updated by a community of people. And I like the idea of a referee because Worms Armageddon is a sport, and many sports have referees. I think your atitude when hosting 1rule were more or less like a referee, you really checked if someone was cheating or not.
Shopper is still a very famous scheme for all these years because there are rules and people act as referees... And this works!
We are ruled by the rules of justice or government (the law), all games only work due to rules (there is no game without rules), if intermediate doesn't have rules, is because the rules were programmed. I think this game should just accept the fact that it will be played with many different rules and rules are very important, I think the scheme editor of the game could receive a text box for the scheme description or the rules, where this text would be saved inside the scheme file. If this idea would be too crazy, at least the Hosting Lobby could receive an exclusive text box showing the rules and details of the scheme about to be played.
I thought that was strange at first too, because I rarely hosted games with few worms. But I see that worms had 200 health, the map had borders and I think the level had a floor too. Combine that with the limited arsenal players are allowed to hold, it makes sense to limit the number of worms, or else the game lasts too long.
Now that you said about the floor, I remember that the 1rule maps had in fact border at the bottom, that may explain why the scheme map is written as "roper maps". I think the maps were bordered caves (without plops) and not twin islands necessarily. And yeah, I think 2 worms make sense. I think I didn't play this scheme with many worms, only with a small quantity.
I only played 1rule over a period of weeks or months, so whenever you played it with me was shortly after I created it.
It was a period of months, then. I doubt it was only weeks.
As for adapting it to WA, I think there are only two solutions. Either using the crate-thing in Rubberworm, or having 1 crate per turn. I am leaning towards the latter.
If you don´t like having both kamikaze and suicide bomber being available, you could put your own spin on it, and remove one or both of them. You could also make any other changes you would like.
Thanks, maybe one day I will do a variation (or just my own version of the adaptation) of 1rule. I'll consider removing crate shower, although I love that wormpot. I don't like RW crate shower, but there is a scheme I love to play that uses it very well and it is more versatile than WWP's Crate Shower Wormpot, because you can choose the % of chance to find each weapon in crates:
Plop Gum.
Forums
