I admit it. I was sucked in.
The lavish spread for Sharp Shooters in Milton Bradley's 1995 catalog fooled me. The rich production values of the game, the summary of gameplay, the heft of the box all conspired to addle my brain long enough to pull cash from my wallet. Now that my mind's clear and I've played the game, I can only shrug my shoulders and wonder what went wrong.
Opening the box reveals a large plastic dice tray with a fuzzy green rolling surface, a stack of a dozen large double-sided cards showing scoring combinations and a clear plastic case to hold them, a bunch of poker-size chips, and 32 (yes, 32) red dice. The instructions are clear and well-illustrated, and the equipment is of great quality.
The game itself is something of a cross between Last Chance and Yahtzee, with a little bit of Can't Stop tossed in. The dice are divided as evenly as possible amongst all the players, and the cards are shuffled and placed in the holder. Each card shows six rows of scoring combinations (full house, small straight, sixes, etc), each row consisting of 1-6 dice. A turn consists of rolling all your remaining dice (up to 5), placing at least one of them on the card, and then rolling again or passing. Whoever places the last die in a row earns chips equal to that row's value.
To place a die on the card, the die has to show the same value as the one it covers on the card. Some rows show dice with colored stars on them. These dice are wild. The first die to cover a star can be any value, but later dice covering stars in the same row have to show the same value as the first one. Things would be too simple if you could place a die anywhere, so all rows must be filled from left to right.
Some rows actually carry negative values— finishing them costs a player points. Nobody would ever choose to finish such a row, but whenever you roll the dice you've got to place a die on the card if you're able. If that fills a negative row, bummer.
When all rows on the card are filled, the round ends. Everyone takes back all their dice. The card is put on the bottom of the stack, revealing a new one for the next round. Whoever has the most points after six rounds is the winner.
But will anyone care?
It sounded good. It looked great. Did it play well? Mmm... not so much.
I've enjoyed plenty of games which rely heavily on chance. I've named three of them in this very review. This one just failed to excite me. You often have no choice about where to place your die, so the only real decision to be made is whether or not to roll again. Unlike Can't Stop, there's no penalty for rolling and being unable to place a die on the card. If the negative row has already been filled, it's usually a no-brainer.
To be honest, I'm not sure where Sharp Shooters goes wrong. It may just be a case of the parts not coming together to form a greater whole. The most damning evidence I can point to is that we had a group of six people play, and the lack of interest as the game unfolded became palpable. We were all more than happy to put the game away when it finally ended, and it hasn't come back out of the box since.
Games Magazine named Sharp Shooters their Game of the Year for 1995. The only explanation I can come up with is that they were playing a different game. If you think you might be interested in this game, and if there's a shred of decency within you, you'll buy my copy.