|
|
The Avid Card Gamer's Review of Wyatt Earp
Wyatt Earp is a meld-making game themed to the American west. The deck features 7 suits themed to famous outlaws, as well as a number of sheriff themed cards, which are played for special effects.
The game play is gussied-up Canasta mixed with Rummy. On their turn, players have to draw 2 from the top of the deck or the top card from the discard pile. They may then play cards if they so choose (unlimited standard Outlaw cards, 1 sheriff card maximum) and then they have to discard. As with Canasta, the person who initially plays cards for a given outlaw has to lay out at least 3 of them. From that point on, other players can chip in singletons or pairs if they want to, in other words, they can play off the other person's cards, similar to Rummy.
What makes Earp tick is the scoring system though. Each card laid for an outlaw on a given turn beyond the first puts money chits onto their associated tile. Each card laid for the outlaw also has a capture value. At the end of each round, players will check to see if there are at least 8 capture points on the board, total, for each outlaw. If there are, then someone is going to get the reward money. If the CP totals are close, then the players will split the money pretty evenly. If one player has a blowout lead of 5 or more, then they will get all of the money instead though. So playing cards for an outlaw that you aren't in the actual running for is often a fool's errand. In the event that there aren't 8 capture points on the table for a given outlaw at the end of a round the money present on their tile will ride to next round instead.
A final twist present in the game are the various sheriff cards, most of which serve as wilds that can add money and/or capture points to your board for any outlaw. However, to work many of them require a successful shot, which is game slang for "play the card, flip over the top card of the deck, and if it shows a bullet hole, then the card works." The bullet hole is present on the most common cards in the deck (all of the standard outlaw cards) so it's likely to be successful, at least the first time through the deck, but it adds an element of uncertainty to the game.
A final pair of notable sheriff cards worth mentioning are the Hideout cards, and the Wyatt Earps. The Hideouts, after a successful shot, allow one to cover up another player's meld of outlaw cards, those cards will effectively disappear from the board and no longer count for that player or the on-going capture point total. Wyatt Earp cards, meanwhile, can be used in a variety of ways: to draw more cards from the deck, to take any card from the discard pile, or to counter or remove a Hideout card. Very versatile, very powerful.
The round continues until a player discards their last card. The capture points are then checked, and reward money is doled out. If any player gets to $25,000 or above, the game is then over, highest money total wins.
Game Length Short, usually about 30 minutes. With reasonably competent play it usually takes about 4-5 deals for someone to get to the money total necessary to win.
Suitability for: Casual Gamers: High if they have familiarity with Canasta or Rummy. Medium Weight Game Fans: High. Heavy Weight Game Fans: Medium to low depending on their tolerance for randomness in card games.
In general terms, this is a game that seems to appeal to casual gamers and people who like the medium weight end of the canon. Many heavy weight game fans dislike the randomness inherent in card games, and there is a fair amount of it present in this game from the draw itself, as well as the bullet hole mechanic.
Scales: I have only played this with 3, and it is exceptional at that scale, particularly for its category. The box claims 2-4, best with 3, but my impression is that is only because the publisher insisted on having it hypothetically scale beyond 3, as the game was originally designed specifically for the 3 scale, and it shows.
Replayability: Moderate, it has no real variation from game to game or hand to hand. It is not something that I would want to play heavily because of that, but as a card game it has some inherent "let's play it again" factor.
Aspects to keep in mind:
More filler than main event: A lot of the card games I review are titles that I think of as major parts of my gaming evening, and Earp does not fit into this category. It's a short filler that you can get some enjoyment out of, but it's not going to be the star of the show.
Nice thematic integration: It's strange that a card game so explicitly based on classic melding games like Canasta and Rummy can have such a strong thematic feel, yet it does. The sheriff cards have mostly thematic effects, and the bullet mechanic feels like taking a wild shot and praying. The capture points and reward money mechanics also feel thematic.
Again, the random factor: I have mentioned this before, but be aware of it before purchasing or playing. Games can often hinge on a well-timed sheriff card play, and being able to successfully place or remove a Hideout cad can easily swing an entire round. If big random factors like that bother you, then this game might not be worth taking out for a spin.
My final slant: Earp is a fun little title. I have a long background in meld-making games, as I religiously played Canasta for a year prior to picking up Spades, and Earp seems to deliver the goods all while playing well with 3, a tough scale for this type of game. Though I am normally someone who is bothered by randomness, I think that it is tolerable in Earp, probably because the game is so short and sweet. The thematic feel is solid, the game plays quickly, and there are always some dramatic moments and fun card plays. It's hard to ask for much more out of a card game. This is not one of my all-star favourites owing to its overall depth and length, but it's a solid part of my collection that I enjoy bringing out every once in a while.
|
|
|
I had Wyatt Earp for a while, and while I enjoy the game and wouldn't turn down a play, I didn't have enough interest from fellow gamers to justify keeping it around.
|
|
|
I introduced and played this, and other Mystery Rummy titles, with many non-gamer relatives and acquaintances that enjoy card games such as pinochle, shmear (sp?) or even Skip-Bo. I often use Jeckyl & Hyde, or Al Capone as the first rummy variant, and then shift to Wyatt Earp. It adds a lot with the bounties, variations and scoring maneuvering/contests. The players are often open to trying other 'board' games with me, given that they are not just briefly passing through.
Just finished a game last night with one of our regular gamers and her father who was in town for a few days. Under sub-optimal lighting, there were some color differentiation issues as he had cataracts, but that was easily remedied. After the first scoring, he had all the basics down and was enjoying it tremendously.
I've also found this to be an oddly fun and quick way to de-stress and entertain friends and strangers in hospital waiting rooms and the like. When I visit someone, I'll bring a copy of this, MR:Al Capone, Hive and To Court the King. (usually with rolled up rubber mats to help prevent sliding dice and excess noise)
I'll play with the patient (if feeling well enough) to help relieve the hospital doldrums. Or, I'll start up a game in a side waiting room to help any visiting kids stay relaxed/distracted/out-of-the-parents(patients)-hair.
It's not uncommon to wind up teaching complete strangers one or more of the games while there. Wyatt Earp is very engaging to look at and gets a good amount of folks asking about it. I have not yet encountered anyone put off by folks taking a moment to relax there, although I'm certain that could happen. Be prepared to quietly wrap it up if anyone appears overly anxious.
Wyatt Earp takes up more space than Mystery Rummy or Hive, but can still be played fairly well on a Hospital bed table and a side stand. You can usually find some kind of table space in waiting rooms.
|
|
|
I bought this for my dad a while back as he is a huge western fan. We really enjoy playing it and I would rather play it to the Mystery Rummy games anytime.
Good review.
|
|
|
Very nice review. I still enjoy playing this one.... CortexBomb wrote: I have only played this with 3, and it is exceptional at that scale, particularly for its category. The box claims 2-4, best with 3, but my impression is that is only because the publisher insisted on having it hypothetically scale beyond 3, as the game was originally designed specifically for the 3 scale, and it shows. How so? I've probably played a dozen and a half games 4-player, and about a dozen 3-player, and I enjoy both. I've never really noticed a big difference in the game play....
|
|
|
Speaking from a point of personal bias, it's because I think with 4 melding games are more interesting if they're played with partnerships. Most of the melding games have deck distributions or scoring systems that means one player or one team can collect enough of a given rank to score. It's possible for both players or groups to collect enough but it's difficult. Earp's capture point system creates a system where it's possible for all 3 players to viably compete in a given suit, and seems to be a particularly ingenious solution to a problem that I perceive in other 3 player melding games (at least that I've played).
While I could see the game sort of hypothetically working with 4, I think it would end up being more out of control than usual, and the capture point system would not be allowed its opportunity to fully shine.
Sorry if my typing isn't clearly communicating what I'm trying to say...I feel like this has ended up being more of a muddle than I would ideally like.
|
|
|
CortexBomb wrote: Sorry if my typing isn't clearly communicating what I'm trying to say...I feel like this has ended up being more of a muddle than I would ideally like. Yeah, I'm not really following what you're saying, but that's OK; it's early here. You give a (presumably  ) cogent reason for sticking with 3-player, and I offer purely subjective evidence that it plays well with 2-4 players. I encourage people to try it for themselves and find out!
|
|
|
Well let me lean on the old crutch of the example then.
Take Canasta. In Canasta there is a double deck of standard cards including the jokers. To play an initial meld you also need either 3 copies of a given rank, or 2 copies and a joker/2 (2's being wild). That's to get them onto the table. You do not play off of other people's cards. However, you only score a lot of points for a given rank when you get 7 cards into that meld, at least 4 of which must be actual cards of a given rank and not wilds. This means that while it is hypothetically possible for both players to score from the same rank (4 real cards, 3 wilds) it is only usual for one player to do so, and it is only possible for one person to ever get the "natural" Canasta of 7 rank cards with no wilds.
That scoring system and deck make-up is why games like Canasta play so well with either 2 or 4. The basic mathematical make-up of the deck and scoring system makes it better for 2 entities to be playing the game. You can play Canasta with 3, but the only really effective form of the game eventually creates 2 teams over the course of play anyway.
The reason why I like Earp with 3 is that the scoring system works very, very well with that count. There are 8 standard cards for each outlaw, worth 2 capture points. There is one Photo card worth 4, and a variety of wilds that can add variable capture points to the pot. There is no need to get to some arbitrary number of cards individually to score, but there is a need to have at least 8 total on the table, and a desire to blow the other players out by 5 for maximum gains. This system works exceptionally well for 3 because it can make for effective 3 way competition for a given outlaw, and it can do it much more effectively than a game like Canasta can, because the scoring system makes it hypothetically possible for any of the 3 players to take control of a given outlaw's reward, often via sheriff card play.
With 4, and this is in theory because I have never had much interest in playing the game with 4, the number value needed to win a given outlaw would be lower. It would also be harder to get the initial meld needed to get the outlaw into play. I think this would increase the chaos factor of the deck draw, which would decrease my enjoyment of the game.
Quite a bit of this is just based on my overall preferences for games though. I don't doubt that the game can function with 4, and probably quite adequately. I'm a fan of the 3 player game, and I enjoy pulling it out. With 4 there are just so many good games though, and for melding games I would much rather play something with the nuanced joy of partnerships, like Canasta, in place of this every man for himself system. And as I hopefully was able to make slightly clearer (crossing fingers) I think the scoring system in Earp works very well for 3, and would not be as compelling or interesting with 2 players or 2 teams.
|
|
|
CortexBomb wrote: Well let me lean on the old crutch of the example then. And excellent examples they are, too. I have a much better understanding of your thoughts now, though I still don't agree with them  CortexBomb wrote: This system works exceptionally well for 3 because it can make for effective 3 way competition for a given outlaw, and it can do it much more effectively than a game like Canasta can, because the scoring system makes it hypothetically possible for any of the 3 players to take control of a given outlaw's reward, often via sheriff card play. If I can reinterpret what you are saying: every player can theoretically compete for every outlaw. CortexBomb wrote: With 4, and this is in theory because I have never had much interest in playing the game with 4, the number value needed to win a given outlaw would be lower. Which, again if I can reinterpret, means that each player will likely not be able to compete for every outlaw. Not only do I not mind this, I find it potentially more enjoyable. CortexBomb wrote: It would also be harder to get the initial meld needed to get the outlaw into play. Again, another aspect I find enjoyable. I like it when someone "opens" an outlaw but it does not get captured, and the money builds up. CortexBomb wrote: I think this would increase the chaos factor of the deck draw, which would decrease my enjoyment of the game. I think that even with 4, a more skilled player will win significantly more than 25% of the games, probably in the 60-75% range. If that holds true, it would indicate that luck of the draw is fairly low. CortexBomb wrote: I don't doubt that the game can function with 4, and probably quite adequately. Ah, damning with faint praise  CortexBomb wrote: With 4 there are just so many good games though, and for melding games I would much rather play something with the nuanced joy of partnerships, like Canasta, in place of this every man for himself system. And there's no reason why you should do any differently. I would, again, encourage people to try this one out however they like and see if it works for them. Bottom line, it's a great little game, and the best of the (extended) MR series, IMHO.
|
|
|