I’d like to start off by saying that, overall, the Doomtown Reloaded team(s) have done an amazing job with resurrecting my favorite game. I’ve even had the pleasure to sit down to a game or two of Classic with some of the designers and feel as though they really understand the game and have not only managed to keep all of the flavor but to make the game simply better and funner to play. Well done!
It is for this reason (ie. that I hold the Doomteam in high regard) that I wish to express my concern over the recent errata. And it is because I am invested in building the community around the game (specifically the Berkeley scene) that I decided to come out onto the forums and express my opinion in a respectful way. I would invite other community members to like my post if you agree with my critique, and/or to generate discussion below.
In short, I feel the errata to both Hot Lead Flyin’ and Paralysis Mark were too heavy handed. I feel as though two prominent strategies, roughly “Lose2Win” and “Control,” as embodied by these two key cards, were not only removed from the top tier (a good move), but removed from competitive viability altogether (a bad move). Overall, I think this hurts the game in two major ways. One is that it hurts the biodiversity of the game. Two is that I feel it alienates the player base.
Now before people jump on me for defending, of all things, HLF and PM (!!!), let me explain to you the kind of player I am. I do not like to play HLF and PM in my decks. I think the cards were both overpowered, and that errata was necessary. I identify as a “Toolbox” player, which means I am happiest in creating and playing decks that play around dominant strategies (such as “Lose2Win” and “Control”). Its a playstyle preference. So, the personal interest here for me is not in seeing my own deck(s) fall to shambles, but in seeing those of some of my my best opponents do so. I believe there are many people on this forum who had to go home and deconstruct their decks and start over from the ground up (a negative play experience - and I don’t believe two wrongs make a right btw). A personal anecdote: One of my players, new to the game these 3-4 months, recently fell into playing his own interpretation of a classic Fourth Ring Control deck - a deck and playstyle he now finds he really likes! And suddenly, a week before the Outlaw tournament, the errata essentially backwards eliminates all the time and thought he put into constructing and learning his deck. And as the organizer for the scene, I am left with something to say like “Well how about try out another playstyle and hopefully they won’t errata that any time soon.” As a consequence, I believe another solution than the one rendered is not only possible, but better for the game as a whole.
I want to talk more about the “biodiversity” of the game. And here, specifically Paralysis Mark. Prior to the errata, which, despite what I’m going to say here, was generally agreed to be necessary in some form, many new cards were introduced into the cardbase/environment that either worked as a hard or soft counter to PM. For example, Yagn’s Mechanical Exoskeleton (hard counter), or Mugging or Tusk (soft counters). I think that this was a very good design direction undertaken by Doomteam that was undermined by the handling of the errata. As a consequence, we have yet to see how the ecosystem will respond with “Control,” a dominant predator, being suddenly and forcibly (and dare I say unnaturally!) removed. And so, because my critique of how the errata was handled is qualitative, so is my critique of the post-errata ecosystem: the game will lose some of the delicious robustness that a better handled errata could have been able to sustain.
Secondly, and more importantly, is the impression this leaves on the player base - not sure here whether to emphasize the “new” players or the “seasoned” players here, for they equally suffer - that any card>deck>strategy has, by virtue of the precedent this errata sets, to be suddenly and instantly rendered unusable, without an attempt to first bring it on par with other cards>decks>strategies. This is a missed opportunity! Imagine the difference the dedicated “Lose2Win”-er or “Control”-er would feel if, instead of hammering HLF or PM with the errata, there was an errata that diminished the power of the card more slightly, coupled with the good work Doomteam has already shown to put into introducing hard and soft counters (or other work arounds) into the cardbase. It would be a lot harder to cry foul in such a case.
Finally, as no critique is worth it’s salt without at least an attempt to offer a solution, I’d like to brainstorm some “alternate errata” material for HLF and PM that might be more of a middle ground, in order to address the concerns expressed above. I don’t offer these as the best and automatic solutions, more of a jumping off point:
HLF
Adopt TYWM’s bullet restriction
Make it a Resolution with a cost
Failed pull risks additional casualty
Casualties issued cannot exceed casualties sustained
PM
Cannot hit townsquare
Huckster must be unbooted
Failed pull risks booting huckster
Spells become unique to attaching dude/deed
In conclusion, I just wanted to vent my frustration over the errata in a respectful way, and hope any discussion this creates remains board-appropriate and civil. And while I do concede that we will likely see a different spread of cards>decks>strategies in the immediate near future, I still lament doubly: that this was at the cost of removing two interesting strategies that keep a “Toolbox” player like me ever on his toes, and, fear that whatever replaces HLF and PM as the next “powercards” be similarly handled in a way that dissuades people from getting into or sticking with this great game.
