Board Game Arena

How does a sheriff distinguish a deputy from a renegade? After all, both the vice and the renegade must shoot at the bandits and at each other.

How do their strategies differ?

A renegade may harm the Sheriff, but not too much. A deputy may harm the Sheriff to mask his identity, but less than the renegade

The deputy wants the outlaws to die, but doesn't really need to take out the renegade as early, since if it's down to the sheriff, deputy, and renegade, the sheriff should win. With that same principle in mind, the renegade needs the deputy to die so the balance of power forces the sheriff to lean on them more and gives the renegade the chance to set up a favorable 1 v 1. So usually if one of the two is shooting at the other, the renegade is the one who started the fight. This is assuming that it's clear who the outlaws are, if the fight was started blind the aggressor is more likely to be the deputy.

Based on my experience there are several typical behaviours that differ a renegade's and deputy's moves, however, its usefull to keep in mind that we are talking about moves, not roles; a deputy might want to pretend to be a renegade (typically, to make outlaws not shoot him and help to kill renegade which will be seen as deputy), meanwhile a renegade might want to pretend to be a deputy having its own behaviour mechanism and reasons. So, in overall, it might be hard to ident the true deputy but it is possible to differ moves typically appropriate for different roles.

Move #1. Sheriff plays duel to a player, and the player ...
- Will not protect his life, will lose his life in case of deputy. Why? Because the main strategy of deputy is to save sheriff's life. Typically there is only one exception: is when this duel will lead to deputy's death and the fight-back will not lead to sheriff's death. Why does this exception exist? Because sheriff will lose all his cards in case of deputy's death, so again this is the act of defending sheriff and his ability to win the game.
- Will protect and fight-back in case of renegade/outlaw.

Example: first round, the game just started, and sheriff plays duel to closest player. If the player fight-back, then sheriff makes a conclusion "this is not my deputy" and can continue to damage this player.

Move #2. Someone plays General store card, and a plyer being close to sheriff ...
- Will let sheriff pick the best for him card, in case of being a deputy.
- Will pick the best card for himself or intentionally not let sheriff pick the card he needs, in case of outlaw or renegade.

Example: A player before sheriff has an option to pick Bang card or Beer card. Sheriff is damaged and needs beer. A player is also damaged and needs beer too. Deputy will typically let sheriff pick beer.

Move #3. A player puts jail onto opponent who is danger to ...
- Sheriff, in case of deputy.
- The player himself, in case of renegade or outlaw.

Example: First round, the roles are unclear. The first after sheriff player puts jail onto the player right before sheriff so that one cannot shoot at sheriff in case of outlaw. This is the deputy's move. In case of renegade or outlaw, the jail will most likely be put to the next sitting player.

The logic behind moves #2 and #3 is the same: deputy is focused more on protect sheriff's life whereas renegade is focused on protect his own life.

Move #4. At some moment of the game (typically after 1 or 2 outlaws being dead) a player starts to shoot ...
- To another "possible deputy", in case of renegade. See, the typical strategy for renegade is to find himself in a situation which I call "the renedage's triangle" - it is the situation of outlaw+sheriff+renegade. Culturally, it seems renegade wins less in situation of renegade+sheriff+deputy so renegade typically dont want this situation to happen, so he has to kill the deputy.
- To outlaw (continue killing outlaws), in case of deputy. Typically, its okay for deputy to find himself in situation of renegade+sheriff+deputy, moreover, outlaws are the ones who try to kill sheriff right now, whereas renegade will not do this (he will do this later), so ...

Example: 2 outlaws killed, there are 2 "possible deputies" at the table. One of them continues to shoot outlaw, but another one starts to shoot the first one - in this case the second one makes a renegade's move.

The differention here, like been said above, is about strategic plan to create a situation. Deputy doesn't really interested in creating a certain situation, moreover, deputy is a littlemore interested in situation of deputy+sheriff+renegade because this is the situation when sheriff can last longer since renegade has to kill the deputy first. Renegade has a different motivation since, culturally based on playing experience, he knows that chances to win are much higher in case of renegade+deputy+outlaw situation, so he tries to construct this situation.

Move #5. A player starts to shoot ...
- Sheriff, in case of renegade/outlaw. This is simple, deputy is not interested in damaging sheriff.

I believe there are more moves that can differ a role in certain situations but, generally speaking, we try to find the motivation, what drives a player to make his move. And there is different motivation. Typically, deputy cares more about sheriff than himself, whereas renegade cares more about himself than sheriff - thats one big flag. And another big flag is creating situation of "triangle" (when 3 players left).
However, having said the above, in my opinion, its useful to remember that roles are typically unclear until revealed. So everything we can talk about are what I call "moves" here. So for example, if someone asks me about his role and why I shot him, I cannot say "you are renegade", istead the right to say will be "you played like a renegade" or "you made a renegade's move". Following this approach to think about identyfing roles we kind of point at moves that are typical for each role: a deputy's move, an outlaw's move, a renegade's move.

Thanks a lot for the answers! I think it will be very useful

I'd like to add a few more points to what has already been said.

1. Early aggression is more typical of a Deputy than a Renegade.
Deputies often attack randomly on turn one.
The Renegade usually prefers to stay neutral early on — unless the setup is extremely dangerous.

1.1 The Deputy has a strategic reason to be aggressive early.
In 6-player games, bandits have a win rate exceeding 60%-65%.
With three players having a single goal (kill the Sheriff), passive play loses by default.
In some setups — like Bandit in slot 1 and slot 2 — their win rate can skyrocket to 80%+, forcing even the Renegade to act early.

2. Discarding the card “General Store” on turn one from slot 1 (next to sheriff) is a strong Deputy move.
The Sheriff receives the last pick from the store — often the worst card.
Deputy don’t want to feed Bandits useful cards, so he’re more likely to discard it.
Renegade, however, might still choose to play it.

3. The Deputy will almost never discard “Saloon”.
Healing the Sheriff is too important for the Deputy’s success.
Renegade may discard it if he don’t want the Sheriff to be too strong.

4. The Deputy will often leave a 1 HP bandit for the Sheriff to finish.
This includes situations where the Deputy deliberately removes the last card from the bandit’s hand (leaving them defenseless).
Unlike the Renegade, who usually prefers to secure kills for himself, the Deputy aims to support the Sheriff’s momentum.

5. Deputy often use “Cat Balou” to disarm bandits, even at personal risk.
He may target a bandit's weapon, knowing it could redirect aggression onto himself.
In contrast, Renegade typically avoid such plays to maintain neutrality.
Only in rare, high-pressure scenarios—like when the Sheriff is in critical condition—might a Renegade make a self-sacrificing “Cat Balou” play.