That said, I could see a "win lowball" mechanic being thematically cast out of either a new Morgan or Eagle home - reminiscent of the Classic Sweetrock home - perhaps tied to influence in some way(?) - so long as there was a common strategy that the opposition could play to negate the effect situated within the fundamental axiom "incentivize interactivity through the town square."
When I think of winning lowball, I think of the outfit's dudes as having "woken up first" kind of like the adage "early bird gets the worm" - and this never sat particularly well with my view of the Worldly Desires theme - as far as being hungover is conducive to waking up earlier than everyone else.
But even still, weighing the negative impact of invalidating whole decks vs. restoring the balance to the concept of Cost (which WD "broke"), I think this is the right decision for the time being.
I'm just glad that various erratas were playtested before being released - even if this time around it resulted in a "ban," which, as far as "calling a spade a spade" is concerned, sits much better with me than some of the (in my opinion) kneejerk errata treatment cards like Hot Lead Flyin' and Paralysis Mark received, where the "errata" was so heavy-handed it became a "de facto ban" and removed whole archetypes from the meta.
Speaking to Neramoor's point, I remember playing Classic with my friend Manny who ran Sweetrock (which had a similar lowball home ability to WD) who never fought until, through meticulous "saving" and subsequent card-counting of Death's Head Jokers, only started a fight when his deck was down to 5 cards or less and he knew a DHJ was a certain draw: "Sandra Harris calls out Rachel Sumner..."