Game: Way Out West

Image

sauceybugger — 2008-11-12T04:00:40+00:00

Front of rulebook

Image

sauceybugger — 2008-11-12T03:59:41+00:00

Back of rulebook

Thread: Re: Rules Question

abadolato01 — 2008-10-28T12:33:40+00:00

Hmm, why is this offering not on the GMT P500 page????

Thread: Re: Rules Question

trawlerman — 2008-10-28T01:23:38+00:00

I almost forgot!

Did you know that Richard Berg is working on a cowboy game? I've got my eye on it. Hopefully, it should be out next year.

The Wild West: The Range Wars of 19th Century America

Thread: Re: Rules Question

abadolato01 — 2008-10-27T12:47:28+00:00

Thanks John. I will try Abilene and Wyatt Earp. I do own Cowboys, and have played it with my son. That game is just right for him, not too heavy, not too light, just the right speed for him, and he loves pushing around those Cowboy standups! He takes the game out at times just to play with them! Bang Bang!

I would love Cowboys if they added just a little chrome to it, perhaps some brawling/close combat rules, there do seem to be alot of Gunslinger fans who talk disparagingly about this game on other parts of this site, and I would tend to agree that there has to be a happier medium for a game that falls somewhere between Cowboys and Gunslinger on the complexity scale. Perhaps Worthington Games will hear the call!

Thanks again for the rules clarifications! Enjoy the games!

Thread: Re: Rules Question

trawlerman — 2008-10-27T00:17:20+00:00

abadolato01 wrote:
One rules question and a couple of comments if I might. At the end of game, when counting VP's, if I have 4 building/transport counters in one town, is EACH counter worth 4 VP's, or is the total VP's for that town = 4 VP's (i.e., which is correct, 16 or 4 VP's?).

In your example, 16 VP is correct.

EACH counter is worth the total of b/t counters in the town, regardless of whether they are yours are not. So, if you had TWO buildings in town, but there were FIVE TOTAL, each of your buildings would be worth 5 points, for a total of 10.

Also, there's a bonus, equal to the b/t total, given to the player who owns the majority of b/t (+cattle in this instance) in any town.

Just as a topic of conversation (this is my comment section), has anyone found that it is difficult to even get to place units in the top two or three towns? We played with 3 players, and all the action seemed to take place in Towns #1 and #2 for the duration of the game. Perhaps the other towns come more into play with more than three players?

I think as you play more, you'll see that those towns, even in a 3-player game, will be used. Remember, at the start you can place your cowboys in any town on the board. And then you can build b/t counters in any town on the board. It's a nice, easy way to get some VPs to build in towns where there's no competition. The only restriction is that you can't place cattle in the higher towns until the town below is more than half full of them.

In any event, I do believe this is an underrated game, and is a good combo of western theme with simple, elegant mechanics, as well as many action options during your player turn. The turns are fairly quick and dirty, so no player should feel left out during another players action round. In fact, if they're not studying the situation, they might find themselves eating lead!

I couldn't agree more! Most of the game's detractors dislike the game because of the dice combat. The game is almost a perfect optimization/area control Euro, then things get turned upside down by a heavy dash of direct conflict mediated by Lady Luck. I understand that the game isn't for everyone, but I also think there's a large audience out there that would like the game, but will probably never come across it. Oh well. I'll keep enjoying it.

It's also worth noting that the action selection boxes in this game (the first, but not the last, time that Wallace uses the idea) are a clear ancestor of "worker placement" games, which have become very popular lately.

I hope you enjoy Gunslinger. I've been tempted to buy it several times now and will probably take the plunge at some point.

A couple of other Western themed games that I can recommend are:
Abilene (Hexagames edition - hard to find, but plays perfectly with three)
Bang! (really needs seven players to shine)
Cowboys: The Way of the Gun (may be the best cowboy game for an 8-year-old! Also a good game to introduce introductory wargame concepts like CRTs)
Wyatt Earp (rummy variant)

Thread: Re: Rules Question

abadolato01 — 2008-10-26T14:44:28+00:00

Thanks John, yes I agree, the game does have many options, and the rule book is pretty clear, but very concise. Truth be told, one of my fellow cowboys is my 8 year old son, and he seems to get the hang of it, no complex mechanics here. I did learn quickly that the core of the game system (and the way to win) is to build building/transport counters.I had the most cash at the end of the 12th turn, but that only nets you 4 VP's, and my son had developed all the properties! In the end, he crushed me.

One rules question and a couple of comments if I might. At the end of game, when counting VP's, if I have 4 building/transport counters in one town, is EACH counter worth 4 VP's, or is the total VP's for that town = 4 VP's (i.e., which is correct, 16 or 4 VP's?).

Just as a topic of conversation (this is my comment section), has anyone found that it is difficult to even get to place units in the top two or three towns? We played with 3 players, and all the action seemed to take place in Towns #1 and #2 for the duration of the game. Perhaps the other towns come more into play with more than three players?

In any event, I do believe this is an underrated game, and is a good combo of western theme with simple, elegant mechanics, as well as many action options during your player turn. The turns are fairly quick and dirty, so no player should feel left out during another players action round. In fact, if they're not studying the situation, they might find themselves eating lead!

Just got a old copy of Gunslinger on EBAY, and looking forward to playing that one as well once I absorb the rules. I do wish that game companies would come out with more western themed counter games! There is a market there just waiting to be tapped!

Thread: Re: Rules Question

Windopaene — 2008-10-26T04:44:20+00:00

I haven't played in a long time, because it's just sooooo close to being a great game. The total fail that is the bank, and the fact that the train is almost always a bad buy, sadden me. The core mechanisms work really well, but those two just irk me.

The "banker" shouldn't have to pay IMHO. Since when do banks hold the banker's money???

Thread: Re: Rules Question

trawlerman — 2008-10-26T02:16:54+00:00

I don't have the rules in front of me, but here are a couple of quick answers from memory:

abadolato01 wrote:
Played this game recently, and was wondering;

Do stagecoaches, hotels, and stores have an inherent cowboy, similar to the bank or jail? How do they defend against other players cowboys in gunfight, or can they?

No, I think it's only the bank and the train that have an intrinsic cowboy defense. All other buildings need to be defended by cowboys in the town. The jail has the sheriff which works as a defending cowboy, but also has a few other special rules attached to it, such as being able to join in on other fights.

I was confused by a player aid card posted here. Is it necessary to have cowboys in a town before placing cattle there? Does the same question apply to buildings/transport counters?

I can't remember if it's a hard and fast rule that you need to have a cowboy in town before placing counters (I think it is), but, honestly, there's no reason why you'd place a counter unless you have a defense system set up. Otherwise, your objects are just easy theft targets.

Is it true that a building/transport or a cattle counter must always be the subject of a gunfight?

Yes. You cannot just attack other cowboys. There always must be a target (cattle/building/transport/farmer).

And if gunfighting to turn a cattle counter to mine, is the action marker placed in the gunfight square on the board or the rustle cattle square? My question assumes there are other players cowboys in town when I attempt this.

It's placed in the gunfight box. There is no rustle cattle square. I think that you're thinking of the "move cattle" box which only allows you to move your own cattle.

To be clear, cowboys can never be the target of an attack. If there are no opponent cowboys in town to defend an opponent building/cattle, then there is no defense and you simply win the "gunfight" without a fight.

I hope that helps.

I don't think the rules are that hard to this and the rulebook is pretty clear. Read it over a few more times. If you still have any rules questions, I'll be subscribed to this thread and I can come back and answer with "chapter and verse" from the rules. Way Out West is one of my favorite games and I think that it's a bit underrated here. I'm glad to hear that you're enjoying it.

Happy gaming.

Thread: Rules Question

abadolato01 — 2008-10-26T00:52:55+00:00

Played this game recently, and was wondering;

Do stagecoaches, hotels, and stores have an inherent cowboy, similar to the bank or jail? How do they defend against other players cowboys in gunfight, or can they?

I was confused by a player aid card posted here. Is it necessary to have cowboys in a town before placing cattle there? Does the same question apply to buildings/transport counters?

Is it true that a building/transport or a cattle counter must always be the subject of a gunfight? And if gunfighting to turn a cattle counter to mine, is the action marker placed in the gunfight square on the board or the rustle cattle square? My question assumes there are other players cowboys in town when I attempt this.

I am sure I will have other questions, overall I enjoyed my first play with my fellow cowboys, but we were scratching our heads at some rules that are ambiguous or vague.

Thread: Re: Attack and Stage Coach Question

Basiliv — 2008-09-25T04:14:08+00:00

Is it legal to attack a target (Cattle or B&T) if you cannot replace it with a counter of your own?

Yup! See this thread:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/29439

Also, if you move your own cowboys from a location with your own stage coach to a location with another of your stage coaches, am I correct that you would NOT receive any money for this move?

You're right, you collect no money for moving your own cowboys. Under SPECIAL RULES: Stagecoach the rules say, "However, a player can never earn money by moving or placing his own cowboys."

Thread: Re: Don't Believe the "grype": A Good Western American Weuro

Valmorian — 2008-09-08T21:48:18+00:00

"The bank. People have said the bank is broken just by reading the rules. Well they didn’t read them well. You never build the bank until the end of the game, since each town can have only one building of a type, you have to build a bank later game to fill out a city and score points."

If this is the case, then why give the bank an income on the income turns? If anything, the bank (at it's investment risk) should produce MUCH more income than any other building.

Thread: Attack and Stage Coach Question

punkzter — 2008-07-10T01:05:44+00:00

Is it legal to attack a target (Cattle or B&T) if you cannot replace it with a counter of your own? I encountered a situation where I wanted to attack my opponents Cattle counters simply to remove them from the board and I did not have any counters of my own to replace them with. There was also a time when I wanted to attack a Hotel but I again did not have one of my own to replace it with. Would it still be legal to start this attack and simply clear the defeated counter off of the board if I win?

Also, if you move your own cowboys from a location with your own stage coach to a location with another of your stage coaches, am I correct that you would NOT receive any money for this move?

Thanks,
Brad

Thread: Re: farmer and sherrif always alone?

trawlerman — 2008-01-30T00:24:06+00:00

I've always played that only the Sheriff could defend the farmer. I agree that the rules are murky on the issue. They do not state that the cowboys cannot defend the farmer, but neither do they state that cowboys can help defend. They definitely do state that the sheriff can help.

Under "GUNFIGHT," the rules state that "a farmer may be attacked instead of another player." Farmers, once placed on the board, act as their own neutral parties, independent of the players at the table. It's even possible, but unlikely, that someone could play a farmer at one point in the game, then try to kill that same farmer later because conditions have changed.

Hope that helps.

Thread: farmer and sherrif always alone?

Kalidor — 2008-01-29T23:17:21+00:00

Hi! Just a clarification on the poor farmer being attacked...Nichols and Richtmyer did a great job at making the rules incredibly understandable. I just need to know if, when a farmer gets attacked, can the defender use all of his/her cowboys to assist the farmer? Or only the sherrif (if he is available)? Thanks in advance; hope that was clear enough!

Thread: Re: Don't Believe the "grype": A Good Western American Weuro

supertris — 2008-01-29T09:14:35+00:00

I'm happy without complete safety, and with an element of luck in games I play. I gave away WOW because I wasn't happy with the way that one turn of luck can put you pretty much out of contention.

The thing is, if you lose a battle, even one you were favourite to win, you have a few posessions lieing there which just cost 1 action to walk in and take. So people do, and you've suddenly got all your cattle rustled, a new manager for what used to be your hotel/bank, and no income.

So you can spend savings on a couple of new cowboys, and they can either sit back in nowhereville waiting for support, or march in and try to defend against the feeding frenzy.

For me, the game felt very thematic, but completely unfun. My friends and I enjoy economic engine games, and massive luck-fests, as long as they are relatively quick. But the mix of the two means it just feels like being kicked in the teeth at random, and dumped out of a couple of hours of game because one die roll went badly wrong and everyone elses best move was to pile in.

Thread: Re: Don't Believe the "grype": A Good Western American Weuro

Sprydle — 2008-01-29T06:43:19+00:00

denverarch wrote:
H
I think euro players and some of my friends want completly safe games, but I don't mind the instability and tension created by unsafe positions.

This is why Wallace games can be difficult for euro-centric players. He always has (a) random element(s) which makes sure things, not so sure. Each game-style has it's place, and I do like many euros, but the Wallace games are always fascinating because he seems uniquely able to distill a tremendous amount of *stuff* down to its pure elements and a couple/three choices and create an amazing "experience."

Thread: Re: Don't Believe the "grype": A Good Western American Weuro

Larry Levy — 2008-01-28T23:57:18+00:00

Wade, if the number of cowboys you're talking about are typical for your games, we tended to use a lot more of them. That could be groupthink on either side, but our games tended to be pretty bloody. Even eurogamers like to roll dice!

It's obviously been a while, but my recollection was that someone would get a good town set up and then there'd be at least one opponent who'd send in the guns. Yes, the loss of an action is expensive, but a victory meant tearing down the leader and gaining control of some nice buildings, making it quite worthwhile (I may not have all these details right--it really has been a while since I played this). To prevent the loss of his honeypot, the first player would load up on his own goons. The arms race kind of took over, but because of the way combat is resolved (with the attacker taking his results first), it was very hard to ensure success for the defender. The chaos in and of itself wasn't such a problem, but eventually people started saying, why should I work so hard to set up these towns if it's just going to come down to a dice battle?

Maybe our groupthink was hurting us, but most session reports of the time cited games with lots of combat. And while I wouldn't have minded a little gunplay (it certainly fits the theme), I didn't like the fact that it dominated gameplay. Then again, perhaps I should just shut up, because you guys are enjoying the game, so whatever you're doing seems to be working!

Thread: Re: Don't Believe the "grype": A Good Western American Weuro

denverarch — 2008-01-28T22:33:29+00:00

Hunh, no problems with cowboys I've seen. He has 2 cowboys you have 4 and a sheriff, you will usually win. Our game saw people with advnatages win, with only a couple fluke battles and those were 2-1.

As you've played a lot more than me I'll take your word for it.

Plus your cowboys are limited and attacking costs one (of two) action, that's huge.

I would think switching the wanted posters to the reverse might add the desired effect. Wanted posters are thematic but BAD. The more people who get money for your demise would not be a good thing. So you win a battle, collect a wanted poster and the msot at the end of the game loses 4 VP. So sure take my hotel but you migth lose 4 VP for it.

I think euro players and some of my friends want completly safe games, but I don't mind the instability and tension created by unsafe positions.

Anyway, thanks for the comments. I'll comment further on games as I'm able to play them.

Thread: Re: Don't Believe the "grype": A Good Western American Weuro

Larry Levy — 2008-01-28T21:09:36+00:00

Wade, we played WOW quite a bit when it first came out and we really wanted to like it, but the gunfights just killed it. Now, this is from a euro perspective, so if you want to take the position that life was risky in the Wild West and there were no guarantees that you'd live to see another sunrise, yadda, yadda, then sure, no problems. But from the point of view of a game, not a simulation, and, more to the point, a game with considerable planning, this extremely chaotic element pretty much spoiled it for us.

The problem is we couldn't find any level of protection that could make a town safe. All it took was one lucky result against you and the whole house of cards could come tumbling down. Exacerbating the situation was that at that point, you were helpless as each player in turn would come and feast on your carcass.

We did not give up on this game without a fight. A few variants were considered, but we couldn't find one that dealt with all of the problems. I also remember a spirited discussion in Counter magazine about the strengths and weaknesses of the title. Wallace hadn't hit it big yet, but his talent was obvious and some of his train games were very good. It was so frustrating that he could design 90% of a great game, and then stumble because of his addiction to high luck mechanisms. It's interesting that his designs since then feature considerably less luck and I think that's been one factor in their success. But we did take the game seriously when it was released and tried to love it. I'd love to see Wallace revisit this one and redesign it with a better balanced combat system. It has the potential to be a great game, but as it's currently structured, our group has no interest in playing it.

(P.S. We never had the chance to try Togu Oppusunggu's popular "wounded cowboy" variant, because our copy had been sold by the time he proposed it. But a lot of people swear by it, so I'd like to try the game with that change someday.)

Thread: Re: Don't Believe the "grype": A Good Western American Weuro

denverarch — 2008-01-28T19:58:51+00:00

Agreed. Since we played AOEIII right before WOW both bare resemblances in that they feel amazingly play tested, and there are quite a few paths to victory. Writing the review and seeing the comments make me want to urge my friend to come down for another play next week. Yes, since we are Way Out West, he lives over an hour away.

Thread: Re: Don't Believe the "grype": A Good Western American Weuro

Sprydle — 2008-01-28T19:30:59+00:00

It's a fair statement that if anyone thinks a Wallace game is "broken," they're not playing well and or not playing correctly. While different players may or may not like his style of game, his games are generally amongst the tightest, well-playtested, and most unforgiving in the "euro" market. I traded for WOW, but I now buy every Wallace game that gets released, entirely on the basis of the designer's merits.

Definitely, though, thanks for the review, even though I traded for it about a year ago and haven't gotten to play it yet--it has now moved WOW up in our to-play queue!

Thread: Re: Don't Believe the "grype": A Good Western American Weuro

denverarch — 2008-01-28T17:02:35+00:00

Ha! Ok not everyone, but a few vocal ones, although Vassel's review is pretty positive. For whatever reason (probably the neat communal interactive building/mooching aspect) I really like this game over many other Wallace releases. Its WAY more FUN than Tempus, and easier to grasp and enjoy than Byzantium.

I think WOW is to the Wild West settlment theme as AOEIII is to New World discovery. They are both excellent abstrated representation. They both leave open a great niche for a finer resolution hands on feel for their respective themes.

Thread: Re: Don't Believe the "grype": A Good Western American Weuro

Great Dane — 2008-01-28T16:25:05+00:00

denverarch wrote:
Well sometimes I just love it when all the BGGers get it totally wrong.

"All" BGGers???
You must have been looking the wrong place!

Thread: Re: Don't Believe the "grype": A Good Western American Weuro

trawlerman — 2008-01-28T16:13:40+00:00

Thank you for this awesome review. I agree with you on practically every point. WoW is one of the few games I rate a '9' and has easily retained a place in my "top ten" ever since I first played it a couple of years ago. It's a crime that this game is so neglected and unloved here on BGG.

Thread: Re: Don't Believe the "grype": A Good Western American Weuro

Stratagems — 2008-01-28T15:48:14+00:00

After reading about WOW on the Geek, I took a chance and managed to find a copy for sale. I was worried that the many gripes I had read about were grounded in reality and that I would encounter a grossly imbalanced game. But there are precious few choices for the genre and I normally love Martin Wallace's games so I figured it was worth the risk. I'm happy to say it was.

I think those that reviewed WOW so low should revisit the game with a clean slate. WOW has so many tense decisions where you are always wishing you had "just one more action" to spend that it gives the sense that every action spent is critical, which it is. Much like another Wallace, Struggle of Empires.

We found over multiple plays that no one building was "broken". The Banks and Trains really didn't sway the game in anyones favor. Maybe we weren't focused on them but they just didn't seem to be the problem that a lot of people said they were. Gunfights are brutal and unavoidable. Yes they are random but that just adds to the games charm IMHO. I feel that this game may have been released at the wrong time for the gaming community to accept it. It's a shame, its a nice little game worth playing.

Thread: Don't Believe the "grype": A Good Western American Weuro

denverarch — 2008-01-28T14:10:39+00:00

Well sometimes I just love it when all the BGGers get it totally wrong.

I have been eyeing WOW for some time now and a new game friend happens to have it, but he's only played it once. After visiting the BGG entry for this game you would think it wasn’t worth the cardboard it was printed on. Still, being stubborn and a fan of Western US development games I urged our group to play this last Saturday.
I see that there are precious few American West Development games. You would think they whole era was one big gunfight, when it is the perfect backdrop for some nicely themed development/settlement games. They all seem to focus on gunfights, and while this one has its share of gunfights it also incorporates the abstracted development of the American West. It seems most of the comments regarding WOW are from BGGers who are people who declared the game broken and worthless just from reading the rules and reinforcing other reviewers negative comments. I'm not sure anyone played this with an open mind. There are claims the bank is broken, the railroad is broken, the gunfights are horrible. After a good, solid game I disagree and wonder if the reviewers even played the game.

The game is classic Wallace, abstracting a theme down to its very essence and then giving you 3 or less actions per turn to explore this concentrated essence. I though 3 actions in most of his games was tight, now I only have two! This does add to speed up the game that is only 12 turns long and it works marvelously. Unlike Age of Steam and Brass, this is game in the Byzantium and Perikles mode. A deep euro with some vicious combat, so I feel its probably more in the weuro camp, and it could be played "nicely" or as a rootin tootin gunfight across the West. We played it a mixture of the two styles.

WOW is an excellent and interesting weuro. It incorporates some very nice "moochin" communalism mechanics I have been working on in games that I am designing. The players build "cities" together, limited to one building type per city, and 2 buildings per player. The first with a jail gets a combat advantage, the store gives you money for opponents cattle, the motel gets money for opponents cowboys. You score points for cattle and the number of buildings times the number of buildings in a town. The more buildings the more they’re worth. You also score some points for most money and most gunfights won! There is a clever moment when a player proceeds to build a hotel before there is a "cowboy arms race" to protect a bigger city. Add to the limited actions, everything needs money to build and money is not easy to come by if your "friends" attack you: this makes for a down right tense and fun game. You get money from cattle, having a store in an opponent’s town and when people move over your stage coach. It's an incredibly simple game with delicious decisions. With two actions per turn you cannot do everything you need to do. Also although the game is really well balanced, there are no automatic euro catch-up mechanic, you don’t get 10 points because it’s your birthday or 5 points because player A got 10 points. You have to weight the pros and cons of each vital action and live on die on your own choices.

The bank. People have said the bank is broken just by reading the rules. Well they didn’t read them well. You never build the bank until the end of the game, since each town can have only one building of a type, you have to build a bank later game to fill out a city and score points. Plus to rob a bank it costs an action. You have two actions per turn, you must use 50% of your action points to attack a bank. Our game saw no problems with the bank. You only have so many types of buildings per city and eventually you must build a bank, but you must also be sure you protect it.

The railroad. We saw one railroad built last as a player had tons of money. He had a lot of cattle so it was smart move for him. It was worth more than the VP reward for the most money. Nobody was stupid enough to buy it earlier. The railroad is meant to be an endgame "building" you play strategically to get some good points. At 20$ I don’t see it too expensive as some players will have more than enough money in the end.

Gunfights. The euro purist will hate this part since you are not guaranteed perfect safety all game long, you must invest in defense with jails and cowboys. The combat system is a little different and interesting. Smaller groups fire first and roll a die 5-6 being hits. Gunfights are risky, and each attack again is one action of two! We had a healthy number of gunfights that were all strategic and flipped control of the game a number of times. I understood the risk of placing a building somewhere where I could not defend it (ouch, sorry storkeeper). With two action and the ability to only add 2 cowboys per action you cannot defend everything. I found the gunfights added tension and excitement despite losing most to a bunch of dice that couldn’t seem to roll 5-6 very often. Western Gunfights were risky, so are gunfights in WOW, you must "draw" at your own risk!

Finally, our game was really enjoyable and I look forward to playing again. Actually playing the game and thinking through the strategy we found the common "problems' of the game were just a bunch of grype, and all the aspects played into one well designed, well oiled, weuro in the likes of Perikles. The communalism of town building balanced against defense from opponents cowboys created a nice backdrop for a excellent Western American development game. WOW is a slight departure form other Wallace games but it will feel immensely familiar to other Wallace games with some slight differences. Our group was uniformly positive in our feelings about the game, and we were eager to try it again sometimes soon. It's not a 10, or anything I would suggest every week, but it is a game I was really enjoyed playing (despite losing) and thought about it long afterwards. The potential for replayability and excitement is omnipresent and I look forward to my next game. Don't believe the "grype", play it for yourself with an open mind and see if don't agree. Do remember it can get nasty so one six shooter is probably not enough.

Image

mdu2boy — 2007-10-11T21:25:35+00:00

From Bobby Tweak's game night

Thread: Bobby Tweak's recommended setup based on # of players.

Bobby Tweaks — 2007-10-05T18:21:24+00:00

3 players: Base game setup with $20.00 starting cash, 12 rounds, and 4 payouts. In addition, use only 4 of 5 towns available. exclude one of the size 5 towns (Abilene or Dodge City). This makes for a more interactive game by limiting corral and B/T board spaces.

4 players: (2 options)

Option A - $25.00 starting cash, 9 rounds, and 3 payouts. Shorter game.

Option B - $20.00 starting cash, 12 rounds, and 4 payouts. Longer game.
Base game setup meshes these two options into one but makes for a cash poor game. Losing a payout round and starting with $20.00 cash makes expensive B/T counters (Bank or Train) obsolete or foolish investments. Time is needed for these counters to work monetarily. At least 2 payout rounds minimal.

5 players: Base game setup with $25.00 starting cash, 9 rounds, and 3 payouts. Wallace's addition of extra actions for cattle, cowboys and gun fights accommodates for the shorter rounds adequately.

Image

Hummasti — 2007-05-09T18:43:12+00:00

Money

Image

Rokkr — 2007-03-26T21:15:00+00:00

Superior box scan of original cover

Thread: Re: Did anyone actually play this before it was released?

John Bohrer — 2007-02-19T18:44:34+00:00

astroglide wrote:
to have a designer look at the game to smooth out the edges

developer

Thread: Re: Seven player game?

philreh — 2007-01-26T14:38:12+00:00

That's what I needed to know. Thanks!

Thread: Re: Seven player game?

IntvGene — 2007-01-25T19:57:28+00:00

To me, Way out West is a fun game if it's taken lightly, and if the game doesn't get too long. I like it because it has some confrontation and conflict, but there is also some strategy too. However, I fear that if you add extra spaces for actions and extra spots in the cities and the corrals, it just might wear out its welcome. But, it could possibly be done though. The components wouldn't be too hard to reproduce, I don't think. I know the map would be easiest to edit.

In the end, I think I'd still recommend limiting it to five people though. BTW, looking at your profile, I would recommend Shadows Over Camelot for Struggle of Empires for good seven player games.

Thread: Re: Seven player game?

philreh — 2007-01-25T02:52:22+00:00

Ryan, thanks for the reply. I see from your icon that you play Dune--so does our family. We also play Bang! so I think we could handle the confrontation. We all love each other before and after.

You mentioned difficulties with the map. What would be the effect of making up a new map with two more cities? I saw a remade map in the resources section. Would that help with the crowdedness? Or would the game get too long as the number of interactions increased exponentially? Obviously we would need another two sets of counters. Are there game components that would be difficult to reproduce?

Phil

Thread: Re: Seven player game?

IntvGene — 2007-01-24T15:29:50+00:00

With Way Out West, there are a limited number of spaces in towns and the corrals, as well as a limited number of tokens. That would cause some problems, but more importantly, the actions would be very limited. You get two actions per turn and since you've increased the number of players, but not the number of spaces available, I think you would run into trouble (i.e. there are five gunfight spaces, so at least two players would have no chance to start a gunfight per turn). You also aren't just adding one player on to the maximum, but two, so that makes me worried about the changes. I'd be interested to hear if you got it to work somehow.

But, you might be able to have some success having two players control one team. You get two actions every turn, and if you allowed people on a team to take an action each, it might be better than adding more players to the game. I don't know if the people you play with would be interested in playing this way, but it's a possible option you should explore.

Also, I should let you know that there is a lot of confrontation in this game, and my family, for example would have troubles not taking things personally. I like the confrontation, and to me, it's fun, but I'd just like to give you a warning about it before you introduce it to your family.

Thread: Seven player game?

philreh — 2007-01-24T14:50:33+00:00

Living as I do in the Midwest of the United States, I have been looking for a "West" game for a while. Our family plays Euro-style games quite a bit, but we are a bit limited by our need for 7-player games which are intuitive. When I saw that Way Out West was favorably compared to Pirate's Cove (one of our regular play games) I was intrigued. I have noted that some people indicate that Pirate's Cove can be played with 7 players by simply adding a second game and more ships. Is this also possible with Way out West? Or would the density of units/play cause problems? I would like to know this before I purchase.

Thanks!

Image

mdu2boy — 2007-01-18T22:32:59+00:00

From Bobby Tweak's game night

Image

mdu2boy — 2007-01-18T22:32:07+00:00

From Bobby Tweak's game night

Image

Eddy Bee — 2006-12-03T00:22:55+00:00

Shootout in Abeline - we use painted HO scale cowboys instead of counters

Thread: Re: Revised Edition?

TeknoMerk — 2006-11-21T02:47:36+00:00

I'm holding off on buying this one until I see the 2nd edition. Hopefully, the right tweaks will go in to address the short-comings mentioned in the reviews.

Thread: Re: Recreated Map/Board for WoW

azegzao — 2006-11-20T12:42:28+00:00

Ryan,

You've done an amazing job with the board! Congrats!

If it proves useful to you, I'll throw out a concern I've heard recently a number of times (I've just introduced the game to my group):

It would be helpful if the Bank and Railroad somehow indicated they came with their guard; likewise, but less importantly because it is about the only use of it, the sheriff with the jail. And perhaps some symbol on the bank and jail to indicate that they can never be stolen (only, at worst, destroyed?)

Anyways, beautifully done!

Eric

Thread: Re: Recreated Map/Board for WoW

IntvGene — 2006-11-19T18:16:27+00:00

I can fix the turn tracker. There are some spaces there between the turns to differentiate it a bit, but obviously it's not noticeable enough.

Making completely different and new towns is probably out of my ability. They are already different, but only slightly if you look at the details.

Thanks for the comments.

Thread: Re: Recreated Map/Board for WoW

MrUnicorn — 2006-11-19T16:55:48+00:00

This is a very nice looking board...serious and fun! Retains and enhances the nice thematic flair of the game. Makes me want to play Way Out West ASAP(and I haven't played this in a long time).

As for comments/suggestions, i concur with what Laurin suggested about making the towns look different...although the picture you have chosen does have the nice corral area which you integrated well into the game's corral areas, and can see why you might want to stick with it. Only other suggestion would be to somehow visually indicate on the "turn tracker" that you collect income every third turn.

Looks good.

Thread: Re: Recreated Map/Board for WoW

Pz V — 2006-11-19T16:04:42+00:00

Very nice. I really like the towns. I know this is much harder but it would be nice if you could make the towns look more different from one another.

Thread: Recreated Map/Board for WoW

IntvGene — 2006-11-19T15:04:32+00:00

Hi all,

I've uploaded a JPEG of my new map to BGG:
http://boardgamegeek.com/image/162476

I'm going to be doing a little bit of tweaking, but then I will uploadinng the PDF for anyone who wants it. I'll also have the original uncompressed PSD and PDF files (about 80 megs each) available then too.

Any comments or questions are welcome. I know it's not a serious game, and this looks like a very serious board, but I just think that the original is just too bland.

Image

IntvGene — 2006-11-17T15:31:06+00:00

My Way Out West Recreated Map

Thread: Re: Revised Edition?

elcapclimber2001 — 2006-10-20T22:33:44+00:00

Fun, theme-rich game. BBG player aids for the present version are helpful, as are suggested house rules, which hopefully will make it into the new edition. Hard to improve on the present components (although it begs to be played with real poker chips if you have any).

Thread: Re: Revised Edition?

astroglide — 2006-07-27T15:28:30+00:00

i would love to see a rules revision of the game

Thread: Revised Edition?

mlvanbie — 2006-07-27T05:38:11+00:00

According to Boulder Games, they expect to get the revised edition of this game in soon. I hadn't heard a word about it. Does anyone know about rules or component changes? It would be fun to try an improved version of this already-decent game, preferably using the copy that I already own.

At this point, every recent game other than Liberte has received a reprint and Perikles will be printed by FFG. I guess I can hope for Mordred and improved rules for Empires of the Ancient World.

Image

thoia — 2006-06-11T21:26:57+00:00

Money, Framgers and Wanted Posters

Thread: Way Out West (a review in Portuguese)

fermmoylle — 2006-06-05T18:29:55+00:00

RESENHA BG-BR Jogo 'Way Out West, de Martin Wallace'

21) COMENTÁRIOS FINAIS (resumo, nota, ...): Nota 7,0.
A conquista do Velho Oeste é o tema desse jogo. Aliás, você
sente o tema durante todo o jogo, e pode até mesmo imaginar os
tufos rolando em ruas empoeiradas. Apesar de toda a gama de
escolhas e da infinidade de estratégias, parece ser o jogo
que menos gostei na última compra que fiz.

01) JOGABILIDADE (possibilidade de jogá-lo várias vezes) - Nota 4.
Como os jogadores podem dominar as cidades do Velho Oeste de formas
distintas e são muitas as ações a serem feitas, esse é um jogo
que permite haver partidas inteiramente únicas.

02) VERSATILIDADE (de quantidade de jogadores); Nota 3.
Três a cinco jogadores, sem que haja muita alteração na duração
da partida.

03) COMPLEXIDADE (das regras) - Nota 2.
Um manual com mais exemplos seria indicado, pois algumas regras
podem se perder e uma interpretação ruim de um caso no começo do
jogo pode acabar com a partida.

04) QUALIDADE (dos componentes individualmente); - Nota 3.
Dezenas de marcadores em cartão, alguns marcadores de madeira,
um tabuleiro resistente.

05) VISUAL (do conjunto do jogo); Nota 4.
Não é o mais belo, mas a falta de muitos elementos no tabuleiro
o torna prático sem desviar a atenção. Os ícones nos marcadores
são de fácil memorização.

06) ESTILO (se é abstrato ou não, se é fantasia, ...); Nota 5.
O domínio de cidades do Velho Oeste, com roubos de gado, duelos,
xerifes que podem ajudá-lo ou não... O tema foi primorosamente
aplicado.

07) ADEQUAÇÃO (do visual ao tema/estilo do jogo); Nota 5.
Fantasticamente bem moldado, como se não pudesse ser diferente.

08) ESTRATÉGIA; Nota 4.
Saber em qual cidade investir, agir no momento certo, administrar
o dinheiro... Às vezes dá a impressão de haver mais coisas a fazer
do que se é capaz de realizar durante todo um jogo.

09) SORTE (quantidade de elementos baseados na sorte); Nota 2.
Considerando que os duelos são resolvidos com dados, pode-se dizer
que a sorte tem seu papel em alguns momentos decisivos.

10) INFLUÊNCIA (da sorte na condução da partida); Nota 3.
Quem ataca em bando tem a chance de derrotar mais inimigos, mas quem
está em minoria começa disparando, equilibrando isso.

11) AMPLITUDE (das decisões a serem tomadas); Nota 4.
É muita coisa a escolher... Comprar gado, contratar capangas,
construir algo, mover algo...

12) RELEVÂNCIA (de cada item para o resultado da partida); Nota 4.
Todas as ações levam a um desenrolar futuro, tendo conseqüências
imediatas ou na pontuação final.

13) INTERAÇÃO; Nota 2.
Nada diretamente, exceto quando se duela contra alguém ou quando
o xerife decide ajudar o defensor de um duelo.

14) CAOS (influência das jogadas dos demais jogadores); Nota 3.
Se alguém construir algo numa cidade, você não pode erguer o mesmo
edifício; se alguém selecionar uma determinada ação numa rodada,
você não pode fazê-lo.

15) PARTICIPAÇÃO (dos jogadores quando não é sua vez); Nota 3.
Ações muito rápidas diminuem a sensação de assitir seus oponentes
jogarem, exceto em longos duelos.

16) CONFRONTO (possibilidade de influenciar o jogo ou prejudicar o
adversário); Nota 3.
Duelos, escolha de início de turno, construções...

17) MECÂNICA (o sistema do jogo); Nota 4.
Leilão, ações seqüenciais, duelos com dados. Tudo faz o jogo funcionar
adequadamente.

18) INOVAÇÃO (mecânicas criativas e inovadoras); Nota 2.
Nada de muito novo na verdade.

19) FUNCIONALIDADE (forma como as mecânicas interagem entre si e
sobre os jogadores); Nota 5.
Tudo se adequa perfeitamente.

20) DIVERSÃO (quanto eu quero jogar esse jogo de novo?); Nota 3.
Talvez o mais fraco dos jogos de Martin Wallace, mas ainda assim
um excelente jogo, com muitas opções a serem feitas. Talvez com
cinco jogadores haja algo mais em tudo isso.

Thread: Re: Component list for Way Out West

mlvanbie — 2006-04-03T00:58:05+00:00

I just took a copy out of shrink and verified the component count.

Thread: Component list for Way Out West

DrFlanagan — 2006-03-26T01:15:39+00:00

Anybody know exactly how many of each counter and block WoW contain, including money?
This is what I got:
rules
board
4 dice
11 black wooden disks
5 wooden disks in five colors
18 wanted counters
6 farmer counters
10 $20 round counters
24 $5 round counters
28 $1 round counters
9 cowboy counters in five colors = 45
9 bull counters in five colors = 45
3 jail counters in five colors = 15
3 bank counters in five colors = 15
3 store counters in five colors =15
3 hotel counters in five colors =15
3 train counters in five colors =15
3 stagecoach counters in five colors =15

Thread: Re: Did anyone actually play this before it was released?

astroglide — 2006-03-08T23:34:29+00:00

the game certainly does have a "prototype" feel to it...

i love the theme and other elements of the game so much that i'd probably kick into a fund to have a designer look at the game to smooth out the edges

anyway, i made a player aid. it's at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=10869

i also started a geeklist a while back to discuss variants. it's at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/8276

Thread: Re: Did anyone actually play this before it was released?

mlvanbie — 2006-02-26T21:05:12+00:00

I think that the rules for robbing the bank are hilarious in a thematic way. I just built a bank with the original rules for 10 VP and couldn't have found a better use for $10 (leaving me with $2 after saving up, and the $2 had been earmarked for manipulating turn order).

The bank and train aren't about profitability, but they do strain your logistics and make you think about the 5 VP for most cash going away. They are about increasing a town's size and the competition for majority ownership. If the bank is profitable then it is giving a lot of VP to other players. The robbing rules aren't about money, they are about providing a way for the bank to be removed from the town -- a huge change in VPs for peope with tiles in the town.

Another player considered building the train after I built the bank, but was worried about the 5 VP for most money and decided not to. He got that award by $1.

Thread: Re: Did anyone actually play this before it was released?

trawlerman — 2006-02-23T02:16:35+00:00

Sorry about that. Re-reading your post and my comment, it is "painfully obvious" that you did come to the conclusion that the bank was broken before your first play, and I somehow missed that as I got to the conclusion of your report and was too eager to comment, thus making a foolish comment that sounded rude. Anyhow, I didn't mean to sound harsh and really only wanted to concur with you that the bank is indeed broken, but add that the game is still enjoyable with it gone altogether.

Thread: Re: Did anyone actually play this before it was released?

curtc — 2006-02-22T00:48:35+00:00

trawlerman wrote:
I'm surprised that it took you a play to realize that the bank is broken. It should be "painfully obvious" just reading the rulebook.
Yeah, it was. As I said, I played with a variant on the first game. It just wasn't enough. I didn't want to swing the pendulum too far on the very first play.

Thread: Re: Did anyone actually play this before it was released?

trawlerman — 2006-02-22T00:40:19+00:00

I'm surprised that it took you a play to realize that the bank is broken. It should be "painfully obvious" just reading the rulebook.

I bought this game a month ago, and it has seen play twice. Both times, when teaching the rules, I've just flat out told the players that the bank is worse than useless and one would have to be a fool to buy one.

We've played without banks and both games were a lot of fun- a good balance between luck and strategy.

I like the game a lot, and don't think that it's even necessary to create a bank variant to enjoy the game (but I'd also be interested to hear how this goes for any group that tries).

Thread: Did anyone actually play this before it was released?

curtc — 2006-02-19T22:23:38+00:00

I've had this for a while and never got it on the table until yesterday. I had reasonably high hopes, as I'm a Wallace fan in general. Although, at the same time, I also saw the mediocre reviews, so it wasn't exactly unbridled optimism. Furthermore, from games like Liberte and Princes of the Renaissance, I am accustomed to having no sense of strategy on the first play, which is fine. So with that, we played.

None of us had played, but I read the rules in advance (as usual), as well as check the Geek for faqs, addenda, variants, etc. There wasn't a lot here, other than the very important clarification that everything has an implicit default of 1 cowboy that doesn't stack with actual cowboys. This was barely mentioned in the rules, and so unclearly that even after reading the faq, rereading those rules still doesn't make sense to me. Warfrog should be ashamed.

And the bank. A number of posts mentioned issues with the bank. Normally, for issues that involve balance, I don't mind playing it as written first, just to see how it goes. But reading the rules and the analysis, it was painfully obvious that the bank is simply broken. Did anyone actually play this before it was released? Quite simply, it boiled down to this: with the rules as written, building a bank guarantees that you will lose. If not the game, at least money.

The rules as written for the bank say that it costs $10, and you make $2 per building that's not your in the town during income (only twice in the game, excluding the last one, which is too late to spend the money anyway). In my game, the most buildings not belonging to a single player was 4. SO the most the bank could earn is $8 per turn. But the average in my game was more like 2-3 buildings, which means $4-6. So if you optimistically say $6 per income, times 2, that's $12, so you made $2. Woohoo.

But wait, there's more! If someone successfully attacks the bank, they rob it for 3d6, and the money comes from the bank owner! That's an average of 10.5 per hit. And players can do it as much as they want.

So I decided to at least try something to temper the bank, since I didn't want to completely waste 2.5 hours, and ruin all chances of ever getting the game on the table again. So rather than try any of the proposed variants, I just made it simple: when robbing the bank, you roll 1d6 that comes from the bank owner, and 2d6 that comes from the money supply. Turns out that wasn't nearly enough. One player put all his cowboys on the city, and robbed the bank every turn. The bank owner was completely broke and out of the game. Thankfully he was a gook sport about it and continued cheerfully. I don't know if I could have done it. Keep in mind that if you have no money in this game, you can't do anything. Typical Martin Wallace. It's literally a death spiral. And there's no stock to borrow like in Age of Steam, so you're just flat out screwed.

There's enough to like about the game that I want to try to salvage the bank, and see if that's enough to make the game fun. So here is my proposed variant: First of all, a premise: the bank has to be desirable, or why build it?

Proposed variants:
Bank:
1) The bank pays $4 per building that does not belong to the bank owner instead of $2.
2) Robbing a bank pays 2d6 from the owner. Average return of $7.
3) After the robbers get paid, both the bank owner and the robbers may elect to burn the building.
4) Each bank can only be robbed once per turn.

Rationales:
1) Paying out more makes banks desirable as a source of income.
2) Reducing the liability means that getting robbed doesn't completely take you out of the game. And it doesn't make robbing the bank by far the most advantageous thing to attack.
3) The bank owner may want to burn the bank if he doesn't feel like providing sufficient cowboy defense in the town. The robbers may want to burn the bank to prevent the bank owner from getting income and/or victory points. But the robbers may not want to burn the bank if they plan to rob it again.
4) Have to give the bank a reasonable expectation of income, without making the income so high as to offset numerous attacks, which, if they didn't happen, would be astronomical income.

With this variant, expected income is about $12 (with three buildings not belonging to bank owner), or $5 after one successful robbery. Of course it is still possible to lose money with the bank (2 successful robberies would be losing $2 after income, losing 3 robberies would be losing $9), but it's also possible to make more money, especially if defended well, which is now worth investing in. It also makes the decision of when to build interesting. Should I wait until the second action of the third turn, when it is much less likely to be attacked before income? Or will someone else take the bank first? Maybe build in turn two and plan to defend? Maybe bid higher (in the currently very boring) turn sequence auction in order to get the bank? I suspect that these sorts of decisions would emerge, but as yet they are just theories.

Building restriction:
Remove the restriction that you can't build a building if you already own two or more in the city. It forces players to spread themselves too thin. There are already incentives to get into other people's towns (store/hotel/bank), but this just seems to get in the way.

First shot:
Given how random combat is, and the limited number of cowboys available, our group felt that the defender needs a bit more support. Not a lot, but a little. One suggestion that I like is to always grant the defender the first shot, rather than the smaller group of cowboys.

I'm interested in feedback.