|
Mick Mickelsen
United States
Texas
|
Cowboys: The Way of the Gun
» Forums » Reviews
Review of Cowboys: Way of the Gun (Advanced Rules)
Many of us looked forward to the publication of Worthington Games' Cowboys: Way of the Gun. Relative to the plethora of fantasy themed games at this scale, and WWII tactical level wargames, there have been few games that deal with this mythic subject. Avalon Hill's Gunslinger arguably was tediously overburdened with chrome, and in any event, has long been out of print. Unfortunately, a number of people who acquired Cowboys: Way of the Gun complained that this game erred by being too simplistic. It's basic mechanic was IGO/UGO movement system, with the on the board cowboys having to choose between either moving or shooting. In addition all cowboys took four hits, so that the only way to kill a cowboy with one shot was to roll double sixes and play a rare "critical hit" card. In addition there was no "opportunity fire." This created a situation where cowboy #1 might take a protected position behind a window in order to cover a portion of the street, and cowboy #2, in order to get passed cowboy #1 window was to wait for him to "pass" on his turn, and then simply move past the window. The game also had a highly deterministic feel. If two cowboys met in the street to shoot it out at close range, the odds were high the cowboy who shot first will kill the opposing cowboy after suffering three hits himself. In response to some player's criticism, Worthington published advance rules on its website. These rules provided for a chit draw mechanic to determine turn order, "reaction fire," and a variable damage determination. In addition, it created the important ability to be able to move and fire, with, of course, a reduced likelihood of hitting the target. How does the game play with these advanced rules? After several plays with kids and adults participating, I happy to report the game now seems to have a more realistic feel, and given the added randomness, much more increased tension. Now to run past that cowboy staked out behind the window, one has to risk getting shot. If you decide to have your cowboy meet another cowboy in the street, who knows how it will turn out? All the cowboys have the advantage of being able to "see" all the other cowboys given the game's "bird's eye view," but due to the fact an opposing cowboy maybe able to move twice before your cowboy moves again due to the chit draw mechanic there is now a much needed "fog" added to the gunfight. I can only assume Worthington Games initially decided to leave out these rules in order to keep the game simple and accessible to children. I've played this game with children every time I have played it, one as young as eight years old, and even the youngest player had no problem comprehending the "advanced" rules. I'm also happy to say they absolutely loved this game. The only problem with the advanced rules is some of the scenarios do no seem to work well with them. They were obviously designed with basic rules in mind, so players will have to exercise a little judgment in modifying scenarios in order to make a better game. Some of the scenarios, which were always a little weak, (how interesting can a a scenario where three cowboys square off for a die rolling shoot out in an open field be?), now appear even a little weaker. It's too bad this game was published without the "advanced" rules now available on the company website. I think many people who would have initially purchased the game passed on it when they read the first version of the rules published online. It's a great looking game, (with perhaps one of the best illustrations on a game box), taking on a great theme. I hope a future expansion offers more interesting scenarios, and perhaps more chrome, such as cards which give the cowboys unexpected objects with which to fight; create doors in unexpected places; etc.
|
Dan Edwards
United States Shoreline Washington
|
You're dead on the mark with this review. This game is a lot better with the advanced rules, and I think the game has suffered because it was offered as just the basic version.
The next layer of rules and scenarios is supposedly going to be delivered in storybook fashion. Sounds interesting, and IIRC the boys at Worthington have said it will include Indian fighting. I'm looking forward to it.
|
Matt Burchfield
United States Virginia Beach Virginia
|
Time to feed the troll.
I never said the game was perfect. I do consider it (basic rules and all) the best and most playable Old West Boardgame ever made. Some Grognards might not agree, but you can't please everybody. There was nothing negative about our response. You (Pat Hirtle) were complaining (offensively trolling really) before you ever played the game! Of course I'll take what you say with a grain of salt.
Troll feeding over...
To wit, one or two of the advanced rules came from customer/playtester response. Happily so I'd say. We enjoy the interaction with gamers. The greater majority were rules that we kept out of the initial release or developed with new scenarios. Some of the scenarios do benefit from using IGO/UGO instead of the chit draw mechanic. Some of the "One Against the World" scenarios come immediately to mind. I would say it is definitely up to the players to decide which turn mechanic works best for the individual scenarios.
The game is selling fantastically and we have been more than impressed by the unexpected response we have gotten from the hardcore Wargamer. It's hard to reach all audiences, especially with a game that is filling a large market void. We can't always please everybody, that being said if there are little changes or additions we can make to make it more enjoyable for even more people than we expected, we try to do it.
I'm glad you guys are enjoying the advanced rules and I think you'll like some of the things we have in store for Cowboys.
|
|
|
Pathirtle wrote: The responses of the designer and the publisher were not exactly positive, as their game was already perfect (or at least, in the words of its humble designer, "the best Old West boardgame ever made.") I certainly disagree. I think they've been as helpful and considerate as they could be. I would not hesitate to buy more games from these guys (I currently own two, and am planing to get "Cowboys.") I really enjoy their engagement with the gaming community.
Last edited on 2008-02-04 11:35:31 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Todd Goff
United States Aiken South Carolina
|
kingcujoI wrote: I'm glad you guys are enjoying the advanced rules and I think you'll like some of the things we have in store for Cowboys.
Hexagonal maps?!?!
|
Peter Marchlewitz
Canada Unspecified
|
I welcome these advanced rules. Nice to see the designers on these forums. I'm looking forward to more "Cowboys" goodness.
|
Steve B.
United States Salt Lake City Utah
|
kingcujoI wrote: Time to feed the troll.
I never said the game was perfect. I do consider it (basic rules and all) the best and most playable Old West Boardgame ever made. Some Grognards might not agree, but you can't please everybody. There was nothing negative about our response. You (Pat Hirtle) were complaining (offensively trolling really) before you ever played the game! Of course I'll take what you say with a grain of salt.
Troll feeding over...
Okay, I've followed this game's development and actually played it. Pat was not trolling, he was providing a service! If I had playtested this game you would have gotten exactly the same feedback. Don't take it personally next time, just listen. If people are noticing these things in the rules before its published, count on hearing it in spades once people have paid money for it. That said, I actually like Worthington Games, and thanks for the new rules, this game will get a second play now
|
|
|
Mick, thanks the the review of the Advanced Rules.
Controversy aside, after reading the review and reading the rules on Worthington Games' website, I'm gonna pick this up; it sounds like it'll be fun.
|
grant wylie
United States va. beach Virginia
|
Thanks for all of the comments, good and bad. On a note, we did take into account all of the comments as the game was being developed. Unfortunately, everyone that purchases a game, or even doesn't purchase a game normally feel like something could have been done different. After the fact we change how we feel and even come up with better ideas on some things. While I didn't agree with everything said, some I did, some parts of the game were already in production when some things came up. At Worthington, as well as at most of the game companies production is sometimes staged with certain components being produced before others. We are always listening.
Thanks,
Grant Wylie
|
David Gray
United States Aitkin Minnesota
|
wargamer66 wrote: Okay, I've followed this game's development and actually played it. Pat was not trolling, he was providing a service! If I had playtested this game you would have gotten exactly the same feedback. Don't take it personally next time, just listen. If people are noticing these things in the rules before its published, count on hearing it in spades once people have paid money for it. That said, I actually like Worthington Games, and thanks for the new rules, this game will get a second play now  Spot on...
|
Matt Burchfield
United States Virginia Beach Virginia
|
If some people can read that thread and seriously say that he was "just offering constructive criticism" then I must be reading the wrong thread. Give me a break. I think we have a proven record of listening to our customers. Sometimes though, people just need to listen back. We understand as gamers and designers that some games aren't just for some people. It's not a personal issue unless people are rude about it.
Last edited on 2008-02-04 19:30:24 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Bart Bartolomea
United States New Orleans Louisiana
|
I have read the thread, and I can't agree with you Matt. I have never known Pat to be abrasive or a "troll" in any way. Reading through the thread, it seems both of the 'parties' involved may have taken things to heart a little too much. There's usually three sides to any story: What he said. What he said. What really happened. You had some very valid points in that thread, and then you took some things a bit personally. Pat had a concern, but did mention that he was going to play the game anyway. However maybe he should have refrained from the 'what-if' examples. While I do applaud you for being involved on the threads. This reminds me of another situation where some customers thought you may not be listening to them (I think you know the one of which I'm speaking), and although I don't have all the information, it does make me wonder if maybe WG becomes a little too enamored of their product ideas at the expense of their customers advice, or wishes. Let me stress that I don't think that is actually true, BUT you can see how if I'm Joe customer, and I have felt ignored in the past and then see that another felt ignored, maybe I start to think that way. Now, when are we going to get a sneak peek at the next 'Clash' variant?  Cheers, Bart
|
Anders Pedersen
Denmark Copenhagen N.
|
From reading that thread alone, I find Patrick is definately taking it too far. But calling it trolling is maybe a bit too harsh. I have not read what has gone before, but if you have a complaint and the designers tells you they are not going to change it, as they are happy with the design as is, there is no need to complain again and again - head for the variants section and make a post. I am pretty sure most designers keeps an eye out for potential improvements, using these files. There is a difference between arguing with the designers and discussing rules changes with other players.
|
Matt Burchfield
United States Virginia Beach Virginia
|
I'll just have to say I considered your tone unpleasant as well despite our best efforts to offer you assistance. We can call it even. I'm done with the matter as well. Our apologies to the original poster.
|
Ben Vögel
United States Golden Valley Minnesota
|
I just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading the thread in question, so I am entitled to share my opinion, for whatever it is worth.
Pat is not a troll and doesn't deserve that label in general. But Pat certainly behaved very poorly in that thread. I wouldn't hesitate to say that to his face.
Worthington did their best, but Pat just kept pushing their buttons, the way a four year old will, until they lost patience.
|
Steve Stinnett
United States Hardinsburg Kentucky
|
I am not a serious wargamer. I'm from the 50's when games were simply and fun. I have been looking for an old west game to play with my grandson that would have the thrills of the old west, be simple and yet maintain a level of real thrill. Cowboys does it. Both, with the simple rules and the advance onces. I have played with both sets of rules with my grandson and adult son and we find it a thrilling way to pass a winter afternoon. Thanks Cowboys.
Steve
|
grant wylie
United States va. beach Virginia
|
Thanks Steve, hearing that is what makes it fun for me.
Grant Wylie
|
M C
United States Orem Utah
|
I am going to pick up this game tomorrow to play with my son who is 11 and a big fan of class Clint Eastwood.
As far as the earlier thread with Pat goes, I think he was kind of pushing it, although he made some good points.
If I were a designer of the game, I probably would have been similarly defensive, in much the same way I would be if someone were to criticize my son, who is perfect in every way. Last night he got a prize at the science fair and I actually got choked up and ran to the stage and took a picture of him getting his medal and looked like an idiot.
That said, I have seen this over and over again on here, where a designer gets defensive. They may even be totally correct. But as much as I hate the way that the word "professionalism" is abused to silence people, it makes so much sense for questions to get passed to the designers and then responses filtered through a third, disinterested party and posted to the board. That way the anger can cool down and the ensuing pissing matches can be avoided. I imagine this is written down somewhere in a "public relations 101" textbook. I think designers are eminently qualified to answer questions about their games, but often are not as qualified to communicate those answers to a community that can be overly prickly at times.
|
tim Tim TIm TIM TIMMY!!
Costa Rica
|
The game sounds great, I think it says a lot that the company is giving out the advanced rules for free. Not sure why they where not their all along. ButI want to buy it, I am sure o that.
A troll or not a troll - doesn't matter to me at all, I have been called much worse in my time!
I think the nature of the beast is to think you are right and the other guy may be crazy!
M C - congrats to your son, that rocks, hope the pictures turned out great!
|
David Spangler
United States
Washington
|
While I think Pat did go one response too far, his Wyatt Earp meets Helen Keller scenario and his crack about the excitement of his Abe Lincoln expansion made me laugh out loud, the first real laugh--and a good belly laugh, too--I've had in an otherwise lousy and difficult day. I think the designers have been responsive and as others have said, it's nice just to be able to talk with them and hear from them, and I think Pat, who consistently announced his valuing the game, had a valid question and a good point to make. Too bad it all turned a bit hot! Seems everyone agrees on the value of this game. But though I'm sorry it came in the middle of a moderate flame war and I mean no disrespect to the excellent designers here or to anyone else, I stil have to say, Pat, your scenario, unexpected as it was and framed as it was, made my day today.
|
|
|