Game: Wyatt Earp

Thread: Re: The Avid Card Gamer's Review of Wyatt Earp

Joe Casadonte — 2008-07-07T14:33:55+00:00

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.

Thread: Re: The Avid Card Gamer's Review of Wyatt Earp

CortexBomb — 2008-07-01T13:00:11+00:00

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.

Thread: Re: The Avid Card Gamer's Review of Wyatt Earp

Joe Casadonte — 2008-07-01T12:02:28+00:00

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!

Thread: Re: The Avid Card Gamer's Review of Wyatt Earp

CortexBomb — 2008-07-01T01:31:11+00:00

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.

Thread: Re: The Avid Card Gamer's Review of Wyatt Earp

Joe Casadonte — 2008-06-30T21:13:46+00:00

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....

Thread: Re: The Avid Card Gamer's Review of Wyatt Earp

TGov — 2008-06-30T19:23:53+00:00

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.

Thread: Re: The Avid Card Gamer's Review of Wyatt Earp

valkray — 2008-06-30T19:12:21+00:00

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.

Thread: Re: The Avid Card Gamer's Review of Wyatt Earp

unixrevolution — 2008-06-30T18:03:09+00:00

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.

Thread: The Avid Card Gamer's Review of Wyatt Earp

CortexBomb — 2008-06-30T13:20:51+00:00

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.

Thread: Re: Outlaws on the Run

kinga1965 — 2008-06-09T17:25:49+00:00

Thanks for the kind words, Tom. Actually, my oldest son played games with me until he entered high school, then understandably, girls hit the priority list. My daughter, who graduated from high school Saturday, has never liked board games. Her thing is the internet and chatting with her friends. I'm hoping my youngest boy, Dylan, will keep his Dad company a little bit longer than his brother.

Thread: Re: Outlaws on the Run

Hendal — 2008-06-09T16:06:44+00:00

Built in gamers, right at your own house - kids are truely a gift from God. Thanks for sharing. Just wait a few more years when you have trouble beating him at most games...............

Thread: Outlaws on the Run

kinga1965 — 2008-06-09T13:53:47+00:00

My twelve year old son Dylan, wanted to play a game. This a rare occurance in today's world of video games and the internet, so I wasn't going to miss this opportunity. He suggested we play Wyatt Earp, which happens to be one of my favorite card games.

Now, let me preface by saying I never 'let' my kids win at anything. I play games for the social enjoyment, but I also do play to win. I think it is more important to show your kids good sportsmanship whether winning or losing. I also think when a child wins a game where they feel challenged makes the sense of accomplishment seem greater.

We sat down at the table and set the game up. I dealt out the cards and we were off. In the first couple of turns Dylan quickly laid down two melds, while I was struggling to get my hand organized. Dylan was burning through the deck as it seemed he had a Wyatt Earp card almost every turn, drawing two cards on the draw then two more with the WE card. At one point, he also drew two most wanted cards in consecutive turns using them to pilfer two of my Sundance Kid cards and turn them into another meld. By the end of the first round I was able to get two melds down that would score me the rewards exclusively. Dylan had four melds down but only two of them had enough capture points. At this point an opportunity came up for me to end the hand, so I did. Dylan had more melds down but we each only had two that would score. At the end of the first round the score was Dylan 13, me 15.

The second round proved to be much quicker than the first. Dylan again started laying down melds rather quickly, albeit only one of three had enough capture points. I was able to get enough Billy the Kid cards to capture him by myself, so I laid it down. I then captured another outlaw on a subsequent turn. Dylan played some cards off of my melds and layed down another of his own. He also played a hideout on my Billy the Kid cards successfully. I had not had but three WE cards in the whole game so I was unable to lose the hideout. I still had two other melds when he played this, so I decided to end the round when the chance came up. Dylan still had a bunch of cards in his hand so I thought it better not to give him a chance to lay down more points. We ended up pretty even at the end of the round, but the hideout cost me the game at this point. Round two scores Dylan 20, me 19.

Round three was nothing short of a massacre. Dylan played meld after meld leaving me with cards that I couldn't play as I would be just feeding Dylan more points. He was successful on bank robberies, stagecoach robberies and fastest gun. I was able to capture two outlaws one on my own and one sharing with Dylan, but things looked grim for my posse at this point. Then on the last turn Dylan successfully layed down a hideout on my only solo capture. Again, I didn't have a WE card, so I could do nothing about it. He then proceeded to end the round with his final discard. Final score Dylan 41, me 26.

It was so cool to see his face light up with his win! He said, "Dad, I'm getting really good at this game!" With a smile I said, "Yep, you sure are."

All things said, the BEST thing was Dylan's next comment. "Dad, let's play another game. I want to try that game you have, Atlantic Star."

Thread: Re: What happens between hands?

Dreadnaut — 2008-05-15T03:00:48+00:00

Yes, at the start of the next hand, after cards are shuffled and dealt, $1,000 is added to each outlaw regardless of whether they were captured last round or not.

Thread: What happens between hands?

Fardog — 2008-05-15T01:36:23+00:00

At the end of the scoring for a hand, when no one has won, is a thousand dollars added to EACH outlaw again, including the ones who were captured in the last hand? Thanks

Thread: Re: Who is going to be the Coward Robert Ford (2-player)?

Rastak — 2008-05-05T01:36:18+00:00

TrojanDan wrote:
I looked into it. Can't seem to find it in stock in any of the typical game stores that I order from.

This website is pretty nice for finding games....

http://boardgamesearch.com/

Looking at it I see it in stock at:

Time Well Spent: Never ordered from them but they have a good reputation.

Boards and Bits: I've ordered from them several times, they are very good.

Thread: Re: Who is going to be the Coward Robert Ford (2-player)?

TrojanDan — 2008-05-05T01:16:09+00:00

I looked into it. Can't seem to find it in stock in any of the typical game stores that I order from.

Thread: Re: Who is going to be the Coward Robert Ford (2-player)?

Rastak — 2008-05-05T00:05:34+00:00

My wife and I really enjoy that game too. You might want to grab a copy of Mystery Rummy, Jeckel and Hyde. Also a very fun two player card game.

Thread: Who is going to be the Coward Robert Ford (2-player)?

TrojanDan — 2008-05-04T22:57:38+00:00

My wife and I sat down for our first try at Wyatt Earp. We have enjoyed the Alea series games that we've played (San Juan, Puerto Rico, Notre Dame), so we went into it with high expectations. And we weren't disappointed.

It ended up being a 3 round affair (the rulebook refers to them as hands). In the first round, we each captured two outlaws and shared in the bounty of the other. My wife was up 8000 to 7000 after round one.

In round 2, I went after the two outlaws with more loot, while my wife went after two others. I captured one of the elusive outlaws outright and failed to capture the other outlaw (Jesse James). I also gained an upper hand on on of the other outlaws. My wife would have caught two of the lesser outlaws outright, except for the fact that I played a hideout card late in the round to erase her capture. End of round two, I was up 18,000 to 16,000. In this round, we mostly tried not to butt heads.

In round 3, Jesse James was the clear target as he started the round with a 7,000 dollar bounty on his head. The strange thing was, neither my wife nor I got the cards for Jesse the entire round. We played this round cautiously and built up the bounties on most of the outlaws. Again we tried not to go directly against each others targets. Because I was afraid of the hideout late in the round strategy, I kept a Wyatt Earp card around as insurance. We shared in two outlaws and each caught one outlaw by more than 5 capture points than the other. But once again, my wife made the mistake of playing a couple of wyatt earp cards early, and I hit her with a successful Hideout card. And I came out on top 3000 to 2100.

But in the end, neither of us could be the Coward Robert Ford and shoot Jesse James.

Thread: Re: Games on the Table - Brief Overview Video - Wyatt Earp

TimothyP — 2008-04-20T03:32:28+00:00

I really appreciate your feedback! That's exactly the kind of commentary that let's me know what works and what doesn't.

Thread: Re: Games on the Table - Brief Overview Video - Wyatt Earp

schultzpaw — 2008-04-20T00:21:14+00:00

I watched this video and decided to buy the game. I enjoy how quickly you explain the rules. I had to watch the video a few times to catch what I might have missed but it's much better than having to sit through a 15 min video. It's paced sorta the way my mind works I guess. Anyway, great work and thanks for your efforts!

Thread: Re: Games on the Table - Brief Overview Video - Wyatt Earp

jmcmilla — 2008-04-06T03:22:14+00:00

Very nice. Good pacing, and use of examples. I love Wyatt Earp, and will use this video to promote it to fellow gamers.

Your explanation of how to split reward money makes me think I may have been playing it incorrectly all along. We've always allowed the top- capture-point-scorer to select the leftover single $1000 bill.

Thread: Re: Games on the Table - Brief Overview Video - Wyatt Earp

teabo — 2008-04-04T23:45:46+00:00

Nice video. I've been considering getting this game just because of the theme and the reputation, so it's great to have such a good overview of the rules. Thanks!!

Thread: Re: Games on the Table - Brief Overview Video - Wyatt Earp

aceraxon — 2008-04-04T22:16:19+00:00

Good stuff as always

Thread: Games on the Table - Brief Overview Video - Wyatt Earp

TimothyP — 2008-04-04T21:11:34+00:00

The newest entry in my brief overview series is complete. This time around, I explain the basics of Wyatt Earp.

You can watch the video at either of these two sites:

Games on the Table
Vimeo

You can also just go to this geeklist where I track all videos. The only downside is that the videos are smaller if you watch them from here:

Games on the Table - Brief Overview video series

Thread: Re: High Noon

koby_shachar — 2008-03-24T09:53:16+00:00

koby_shachar wrote:

After two or three turns, a Most wanted card was activated against me, that enables my wife to take a card from my hand. The choice indeed is random, but hand of the fate caused Hideout card to be taken from me, i.e. every a pile of cards that I will present will be exposed to the same exercise that was carried out against me in the previous round, the situation had turned even worse than is was.

It turned out that we misplayed that card:
Most wanted allows you to ask for an explicit outlow card from hand and not just any random card.
Yet, we will not allow this minor fault to stop telling this story...

Thread: bounty hunting with the wife

Roosterfish — 2008-03-20T04:58:10+00:00

Before we left for our vacation I asked my wife if she wanted me to bring some games to play during downtime. She of course stated her favorites; backgammon and cards.

My wife is not much of a gamer, she prefers quilting, reading, or watching any movie (except horror movies) to playing games.
Thats okay most of the time, it leaves me free to game with my buddies or go fishing.

But now I had her captive (so to speak) in our hotel room.
Tonight after dinner I suggested playing a game and she said "sure, what game?"
I said "how about a card game?"
Little did she know I had snuck Wyatt Earp on vacation with us.
When I brought it out she did her usual 'great, he has a new game eye roll'.

I explained to her the game played a lot like Rummy - "you like Rummy honey".
She relented (probably because she was tired from touring Biltmore Estates today) so I cleared the hotel room dinning table (we have a room suite) setup up the wanted posters, shuffled the cards and explained the game as best I could without actually having played it myself.

She caught on pretty quickly and asked some intellegent questions which sent me back to the rule book.
After having a pretty good handle on the game we began playing.

I was impressed with my wife's play; she played hideout on my Butch Cassidy meld which had $8000 on his reward poster (love the $4000 Photo card) as I played a Wyatt Earp card and drew a Sheriff card trying for a successful shot to remove the hideout.
She played a most wanted card and took a Billy the Kid card from my territory and added it to her meld making her CPs greater than 6 CPs more than mine so she won Billy's rewards and didn't have to share.
Julie (formally known as she) earned $11000 the first round and $19000 the second round (she took the big Butch reward left over from last hand) and soundly beat me $30000 to $6000.

She liked the game and was excited when I told her there were other genre in this 'Rummy' series and I would order another one.
I think my next purchase will either be Jack the Ripper or Jekyll and Hyde - horror Rummy (heeheeheehee).

Thread: Scoring

Roosterfish — 2008-03-14T16:05:26+00:00

I just bought the Wyatt Earp game to play with my wife.
Reading the game's rules and the rules questions posted on BGG for the game I was somewhat confused by the scoring (I actually thought I understood them before reading other post).
I decided I'd write them out on paper as I read them which turned into a quasi flowchart which I then turned into an actual flowchart (albeit rudimentary flowchart) which I posted under the Wyatt Earp file section.
Hopefully I have the scoring method correct.
If any Wyatt Earp players notice mistakes I made in the flowchart could let me know I will fix it.
Admins should post file soon.
thanks

Thread: High Noon

koby_shachar — 2008-03-09T12:52:19+00:00

Saturday morning.
The clock hands are moving slowly.
Noon time is coming.

My wife and I decided to play a game for two. 'Wyatt Earp' was taken from the shelf. Wyatt Earp, American lawman, that lived in the 19th century and fought against gang of criminals in the wild west. In this game of the players collect cards that serve to capture seven famous criminals that on their head there is a prize, beginning with 1000$ and grow the more additional evidence (cards) that serve to their capture are added. The game is destined to 2-4 players, when on the box there is a recommendation for three, but it getting along very good also in a game for two and also in the quartet.

It was cold morning.
The sun shone after very rainy week, but did not succeed to remove the winter cold that freezes everything.

Pictures of the seven criminals were spread on the table, and prize of 1000$ was assured for all those who will bring to their capture.
The pile of the cards was shuffled properly, and 10 cards were dealt to each one, and off we went for our hunt.
I started with a triplet of cards on Belle Starr, on the other side of the table appeared the cards that will serve to capture Bob Dalton, and so occurred a long round in which each side succeeded to obtain superiority for capturing 3 criminals and together we would share the prize for capturing Billy the Kid.
The round was very long, like the shadows of the cactus plants in sunset time, and seems that it will end in equality.

But then, a moment before the deck of cards depleted, I saw the Hideout card landing on my collection of cards of Wes Hardin. A card was drawn from the pile... the hole of the bullet announce successful hit and actually breaking the balance. My response was fast and I immediately played Wyatt Earp card, which was saved exactly for event like this, in attempt to remove that Hideout card. Again a card was drawn… alas the action failed. If previously I was hoping to end the round, now I was trying to get another Wyatt Earp card in order to save the round for me.

The round ends when player discards all of his cards or when the pile of cards is depleted for the second time. And that is what happened. The pile was exhausted and I was left with no suitable response.
Before the prizes were given I protested that during all that round I got only one card of Wyatt Earp. In the coolness of Poker player, laying down straight flush on full house of his opponent, my wife put her hand on the table to show me that she hold six cards of that type, the one I needed so much.

The prizes were distributed.
17000$ compared with 12000$. Big amounts, that promised that the goal of 25000$ will be achieved on the next round.
On the picture of Wes Hardin remained 5000$ to be divide on the next round, since the hideout card prevented his capture.

Great tension was felt all around.
The house was filled with light of the sun, exiting from behind the clouds, but around the table it was cold, very cold.

The cards were collected, shuffled and dealt, only to inform me that the situation is not good. I don't have any black card, the color of Wes Hardin, that his capture will be rewarded with a high prize. And if I'm not holding any card like this, the chances are that on the opposite side there is one card or two.
After two or three turns, a Most wanted card was activated against me, that enables my wife to take a card from my hand. The choice indeed is random, but hand of the fate caused Hideout card to be taken from me, i.e. every a pile of cards that I will present will be exposed to the same exercise that was carried out against me in the previous round, the situation had turned even worse than is was.
First ray of light, that announce that not everything is going against me, appeared when the Most wanted card immediately invoked by me in return, brought me a black card! From here it only got better, I got more black cards, five purple cards (Jesse James). I was missing only one yellow card (Butch Cassidy) to the threesome, that is the minimum to display a suit, and it is what prevented me to put down all of my cards and to end the round. The card indeed did not arrive, but from the opposite side a three cards yellow suit was put down, and it allowed me to put my pair together with the rest of my cards in my hand and to end the round. I collected 18000$, and my wife only 7000$, and of course victory for me in the game.

It was a draw that will be remembered for a long time.
The sun again disappeared behind the clouds, and in spite of the early noontime, light darkness descended on the house.
Not much was said. The components were returned to the box and we started preparing lunch.

Thread: Re: Asking "how many cards do you have in your hand?"

koby_shachar — 2008-02-02T19:28:27+00:00

rootbeer wrote:
In our group, the number of cards in hand is public knowledge in any game, unless the rules specifically say otherwise.

That is a very good general rule to follow.

Thanks.

Thread: Re: Asking "how many cards do you have in your hand?"

rootbeer — 2008-02-02T17:01:19+00:00

In our group, the number of cards in hand is public knowledge in any game, unless the rules specifically say otherwise.

Thread: Re: End of round questions

Great Dane — 2008-02-02T15:18:57+00:00

koby_shachar wrote:
1. If a player takes the last two card of the close deck, he may still can play his turn - correct?
Absolutely!
The "exhaution" rule on page 5 explains that the player does NOT get his turn if there are LESS than two cards in the supply (and he chose to draw from the supply).

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, and now he plays a sheriff card forcing to take another card from the deck, does this action ends the round?
If a hand hasn't ended when the supply runs out for the second time, then you simply reshuffle the discards so that the player can draw the card he has been forced to draw by the Sheriff card.

Thread: Re: Asking "how many cards do you have in your hand?"

Great Dane — 2008-02-02T15:03:42+00:00

You are supposed to hold your card fanned in your hand like in any other normal card game. So while no-one else can see the contents of your cards, they can certainly count them.

However, it is your game and you play any way you like.

Thread: End of round questions

koby_shachar — 2008-02-02T14:58:06+00:00

These questions relate to the time when the cards pile is exausted on the second time:
1. If a player takes the last two card of the close deck, he may still can play his turn - correct?
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, and now he plays a sheriff card forcing to take another card from the deck, does this action ends the round?

Thread: Asking "how many cards do you have in your hand?"

koby_shachar — 2008-02-02T14:51:20+00:00

Do you allow to ask this question?
It may serve as an indication if your opponent is about to end the round.

Thread: Re: Reward Money

Vaughn — 2008-01-02T09:46:55+00:00

1) None
2) player #1 gets $2,000, then Player #2 gets $1,000 and then player #1 gets the last $1,000.
3) $2,000 goes to player #1.

Thread: Reward Money

glenloch — 2008-01-02T00:30:49+00:00

3 Rules Clarifications needed:
1) How much reward money is added to an Outlaw when 1 Outlaw card is added to a 2 pt + Photo 4 pt meld of cards? None or $1,000?
2) How is reward money divvied at the end of a hand (2 player game) when:
a) Player #1 has 6 pts
b) Player #2 has 4 pts
and the Outlaw carries $4,000 in reward money?
Is it: $2,000 to Player #1
$1,000 to Player #2
and $1,000 left on Outlaw for next hand?
Or is it: $2,000 to Player #1
$1,000 to Player #2
and $1,000 to Player #1
3) How is reward money divvied at the end of a hand (2 player game) when:
a) Player #1 has 6 pts
b) Player #2 has 4 pts
and the Outlaw carries just $2,000 in reward money?
Is it: $2,000 to Player #1
Or is it: $1,000 to Player #1
and $1,000 to Player #2

Just got this game, and are enjoying it as both a 2 player game and a 3 player game --- rules are a bit unclear in spots. Is it because it's a translation from the German? Thanks, glenloch

Thread: Re: Hideout card question

Vaughn — 2007-11-30T05:40:19+00:00

You can definitely play Belle Starr at will. No re-meld is necessary.

Thread: Re: Hideout card question

BaSL — 2007-11-24T08:52:00+00:00

Dutch rules say you can still add new cards at will.

Thread: Re: Hideout card question

Windopaene — 2007-11-24T03:26:08+00:00

I beleive the rules for hideout state that cards under a hideout do not exist for any reason, this you would have to play three, or wait til the hideout goes away. Not certain on this however.

Thread: Hideout card question

kabrush — 2007-11-24T01:21:21+00:00

Dad has Belle Star cards - no one else does. I play the hideout card on Dad, with a successful shot. While his Belle Star cards are under "hideout" rules, can I play Belle Star cards at will? Do I have to play three Belle Star outlaw cards, just as if no one had played Belle Star cards?
Any help here appreciated.
Thanks,
Keith

Image

scottredracecar — 2007-10-22T19:17:58+00:00

Macro photo of the draw and discard piles.

Image

scottredracecar — 2007-10-22T19:16:17+00:00

Initial game layout--$1,000 on each of the outlaws.

Thread: Re: Wyatt Earp (for 2 players) - Still a showdown

ccarlet1 — 2007-09-25T04:05:26+00:00

My wife and I like this game a lot. We usually play up to 35,000 when it is just the two of us, so that we get at least three rounds in.

Thread: Re: Should Wyatt Earp Be Outlawed? No Way!!

atomzero — 2007-09-18T21:49:30+00:00

You write great reviews, Rob. Good job!

Image

karlig — 2007-08-11T16:39:20+00:00

Tuckbox for the deck. Generated from http://tuckbox.gameupdates.com/

Thread: Re: "Most Wanted" from Territory

scottredracecar — 2007-07-19T12:22:55+00:00

David, I think that based on the fact that the the photo card is explicitly stated, the player would not have to remove the sheriff card if only a photo card remained.

In that sense, it is more a matter of having the sheriff card associated with a color. If all the colored cards were removed, it would be difficult to remember which outlaw the remaining sheriff cards apply.

Thread: Re: A Fistful of Cardboard Dollars

Tatsu — 2007-07-06T13:20:31+00:00

I'm not big on the box either, but my reason has to do with parts and cards going everywhere. Inserts are typically only good for shipping the game in its pristine state - after that, they almost always suck. There are a few where the board sits really nicely, holding everything in place (Alhambra comes to mind) - the rest always just let everything scatter the second you tilt the box. Given that this box is designed to be viewed on its side, I give the insert a big thumbs down.

Thread: Re: A Fistful of Cardboard Dollars

edosan — 2007-07-02T15:47:56+00:00

gameInformant wrote:
...the packaging on this game was very well thought out – Rio Grande did a superb job of using space and making this an excellent travel game.

Really? I thought they could have used a box about 1/4 the size. Plus, it's one of those Alea boxed meant to stand upright but it doesn't hold the stuff properly.

]]>

Thread: A Fistful of Cardboard Dollars

gameInformant — 2007-07-02T03:17:20+00:00

In this rummy-based card game, individuals begin with 10 cards and work cooperatively and competitively in order to catch 7 bandits. The goal of the game is to be the first to reach $25,000.

After placing $1000 on each bandit, players take turns in trying to make sets/melds of cards and by doing so, raise the reward money for each bandit. If you’re not careful though – you may raise the reward only to see the bandit get away after another player goes out – if you haven’t accrued enough capture points, the bandit escapes and no one gets the cash. If you can muster enough capture points and have 5 more on any given bandit that they other players, you take the whole pot…otherwise the money is distributed evenly, with a bit more cash going to the player with the most capture points.

This is a great fast-paced game that plays decent with two players, but is best when playing with three or four. In a two-player game, players simply draw cards and try to rack up the most points as quickly as possibly with little regard to defensive play. However, when adding an additional player, if you start to run away on points the others will quickly gang up on you.

The game takes anywhere from 25-60 minutes and is easy to learn. My wife and I found that it was a decent game to play with new gamers before introducing them to a more traditional, longer boardgame.

The presentation is nice – while waiting for your turn, players and read short bios on each of the bandits. The Wanted Posters are thick stock and durable and the artwork is consistent with the era.

* A quirky side note: the packaging on this game was very well thought out – Rio Grande did a superb job of using space and making this an excellent travel game.

Thread: A Fistful of Cardboard Dollars

gameInformant — 2007-07-02T03:15:40+00:00

Thread: Re: My Take on Wyatt Earp - The Quick and the Dead

rayito2702 — 2007-06-28T01:37:36+00:00

There are also a lot of wonky round end rules that only come up in extremely rare situations. The most common of these situations being that if the Wyatt Earp card used to cancel a Hide out is the last card in that player's hand, the round ends immediately.

Thread: Re: My Take on Wyatt Earp - The Quick and the Dead

wmshub — 2007-06-28T01:11:32+00:00

Thanks! I haven't really played yet (got it because of the time we love MR: JTP, but when we tried to play with another couple, and realized that the game just isn't very good with 4 players). But in my read through the rules and playing a trial game with my 4yo daughter, I screwed up the photos too, I read the card and like you concluded that it can be played before the meld.

The scoring I got right though...didn't notice about the hideouts one way or the other.

Thread: Re: My Take on Wyatt Earp - The Quick and the Dead

rayito2702 — 2007-06-28T00:49:30+00:00

wmshub wrote:
What was the error you made? If it's an easy error to make, then other groups may be making it too, and saying what it is could be helpful.

There are three things I can remember doing wrong. I've probably messed up other rules at various times as well. I didn't include these issues in the review because they require a rather technical understanding of the game.

1) The blurb on the Photo cards implies they can be played as part of an initial meld. We played this way for a while until we noticed the rule book said they could not be played to start a meld. I have been playing it the rulebook way ever since.

To add to the confusion there is a designer approved variant floating around that says you can play Photo cards out of turn. This seems absolutely broken to me considering how powerful Photo cards are.

2) For years I did not realize Wyatt Earp cards could be played immediately to counter-act a Hideout card. This allows a defense against the play-a-Hideout-then-end-the-round gambit.

3) I played with wrong reward scoring for years as well.

The rules state that the player(s) with the most Capture Points get a $1000 bonus then in descending order of CPs all players get $1000. If there's still money left, the process is repeated with the exception that nobody get's any more bonuses. If there is not enough money to reward players tied for CP when it is their turn to take money no more money is awarded and the money stays on the Outlaw until the next round.

The way I played was that the player(s) with the most capture points have to get a $1000 bonus and the rest of the money has to be equally divided among all elegible players. Any remaining money is left on the Outlaw till the next round.

Unless you are familiar with the game there may not seem to be much of a difference here. But the way we played it tends to make it so less money is collected per round and more money stays on the Outlaws from round to round. It also made it easier to shut down an Outlaw's reward by jumping in with a single Outlaw card (adding CP but not adding money). This would often make it impossible to evenly distribute any cash and no one would get a reward.

I'm still undecided whether I like our way or the official way better in this case.

Image

Werbaer — 2007-06-11T22:01:24+00:00

shelf view (alea edition) (promotion image from publisher, used with permission)

Image

Bola! — 2007-06-10T17:27:49+00:00

What's in the box

Image

Scurvodsky — 2007-06-04T13:57:49+00:00

Epic 3 player struggle!

Image

Scurvodsky — 2007-05-22T11:55:10+00:00

An epic finish: 43,000 - 42,000

Image

Scurvodsky — 2007-05-22T11:53:54+00:00

Look at all that money on Billy!

Image

gamephotos — 2007-04-24T09:50:32+00:00

Box Back (Alea Edition)

Image

gamephotos — 2007-04-24T09:49:33+00:00

Box Front (Alea Edition)