The new HLF is very similar now to Takin’ Ya With Me.
Except, instead of a bullet restriction, you have to succeed on a pull.
Also, you cannot use a sidekick (ex. Mountain Lion Friend, which shares a value).
That said, for the crazy, you could toss a host of high value guys and try to make your opponent match your casualties at an inverse ratio compared to the old HLF. (ex. trade 3 of your dudes for 2 of their’s).
Also, unlike TYWM, it can be hard countered by another Headline.
Also you can’t send only one dude in a shootout and use Takin’ Ya With Me.
Another difference is that TYWM only causes one casualty maximum.
TYWM can in fact be used by a one-man posse!
Also, as TYWM is not a headline, you can play multiple copies to inflict multiple casualties (two copies and a tied rank could score an injured Travis Moone 3 casualties for his opposition!).
To me, the main difference (aside “Headline”) is the bullet restriction. A 0-bullet dude could Hot Lead a 4-bullet dude, for example.
Oh that’s right! The bullets of the casualties matter, not the remaining posse. My bad!
Originally I was super happy about all the changes, but stepping back now I can agree that HLF was possibly handled too strongly. My opinion is that it’s an awful card now, and I can’t see myself ever using it (at least with the current card pool). It boils down to this: after you take casualties for losing, pull: now you have a chance to, at most, take out half the amount of dudes you lost (if you pull and get 4 casualties, they can simply ace 2 dues) rounded up. The chances of having a bunch of ‘throw away’ high value dudes to use with this card effectively seems very low.
But then again, I would have been just as happy with them banning the card all together, so in the end I’m still happy. If the intent was to severely hamper the ‘lose to win’ archetype, then I’m ok with that. The heavy handed approach makes me think that was the case. If you want to inflict more casualties to your opponent than you take, then you have to do a lot more more than simply lose the shootout. That seems like a good path to take.
On Saturday, I sent a high-value low-bullet dude across town square to call out a booted Sloane at the B&B Attorneys for a heads-up shootout. She did not play a headline, and as my pull was a sure-shot, was a dead woman before she even drew her shootout hand…
Yeah, in that sort of situation it’s more of a differently worded Takin Ya With Me. Very situational, though.
Was it Rico that called her out?
HLF used to allow a 2-for-1 (or better) ratio on casualties; now it only allows 1-for-2.
Would you guys think a 1-for-1 casualty ratio would be more fair overall?
I much prefer the 1-for-2 ratio. I like the idea that you should not be able to inflict more casualties then you take when you lose the shootout (with the only exception being if you punish them for cheating).
I agree that a 1-for-2+ casualty ratio, without an appreciable and corresponding cost and/or restriction, breaks a fundamental aspect of the game (Shootouts).
But, there already is precedence in the game for 1-for-1 that can be leveraged to a better ratio through shenanigans.
Furthermore, there is precedence in Chess for trading pieces 1-for-1, 2-for-2, 3-for-3, etc.
True enough - adding an “appreciable and corresponding cost and/or restriction” would bring it back to ‘ok’ in my book. As it stands already, you can gain an advantage in a couple ways to go beyond the 1-for-2.
1- With one casualty, if you tie but you still are considered the loser, you can use HLF to bring their casualties to 2 to your 1. As it is, you can inflict 1-for-1 if you lose by 1 rank. Add in harrowed for even more shenanigans. Hm, question: Do your harrowed guys count as being discarded if they were only assigned 1 casualty for the purposes of HLF? Maybe that doesn’t work, as the due likely has to actually be discarded or aced. Either way, you can take 3 casualties, and still dish out one, and in the end you both still lose 2 dudes. Not a bad deal at all.
2- Like in chess, sometimes you can lure in an important piece/dude, and kill it by sacrificing a lesser piece/dude of your own. I think that’s where cards like Takin Ya With Me, and now HLF really shine. It’s not as much about inflicting mass casualties as it is about either dishing out a little in return, or taking out a key dude. Makes people think more before committing an important dude to a shootout (at least without plenty of backup/less important dudes).
In the end, when you are on the receiving end of either TYWM or HLF, sometimes you can’t help but feel cheated, especially because there’s rarely anything you can do about it. Keeping that to a minimum is the way to go in my book.
After reading this thread today I thought of something,I think that HLF ( and possibly TYWM ) wouldn’t be a problem if you could only play it defensively, so you couldn’t be the one starting shootout /job. It would allow some counter play.
When it comes to errata, I understand some of the points being made by people who don’t like it, but I personally think it was a necessary one. I play the game rather often ( especially on OCTGN), and these two cards were really a problem for a really long time, both were clearly OP in their original versions.
I think most folks can agree that errata was necessary. Also, I think most folks can agree that the May 1st errata is better for the game than the original printings.
But, without negating these two previous statements, I think that some folks can also agree that the errata could have been less heavy-handed. And, though I realize I may be in a vocal minority, I still feel as though the opportunity to errata these two cards without “hammering” them was lost.
For example, what if:
Paralysis Mark
“Noon Hex X, Boot: X is the grit of a dude at this location or an adjacent deed. If successful, boot the dude. If unsuccessful, boot this huckster.”
Cost 2
Hot Lead Flyin’
Headline
“Resolution: If you lose this round of the shootout, immediately after taking casualties, pull. For each dude you have (still in the posse) with a value higher than the pull, the winner takes 1 casualty, up to an equal number of casualties.”
Cost 3
…
I believe these two suggestions above are an example of a compromise between the original printing of the cards and the May 1st errata.
I think the main issue with Paralysis Mark was the adjacency - being able to boot adjacent dudes up to four times every Noon phase. The errata card is more on par with Hustled. It’s a defensive card now.
Hot Lead Flyin for a cost of 3 would make it more unattractive to me than it is now. I would have to cut back on dudes or deeds and save my Ghost Rock for Actions, or keep HLF on my hand until I have the Ghost Rock to play it. 0 cost is a big deal.
Looking at HLF and Takin Ya With Me, they both look evenly balanced to me. I’d probably still go for HLF because its power scales with the number of my casualties. Me losing 3 dudes in a shootout is usually devastating, but HLF can turn things around by making my opponent lose 2 of his dudes. The card is a safety net now, instead of an attack card.
It also can be consistent. In my current Zhu Bajie deck 9 out of 11 dudes are higher value than the pull, in my Rabbit deck it’s 12 out of 16 dudes. It’s still a tough decision whether to go with HLF or Pigging Out.
Do you take into cosideration the fact that your kung fu dudes have printed value only when discarded ( no kung fu bonus)?
Oh I didn’t realize that. That’s unfortunate… :-/
Does the game need another Takin’ Ya With Me?
By this I mean another card for heads-up or suicide shootouts. TYWM sits very nicely in a Hex Control deck or a Slide deck for taking another point of influence off the table without having to “win” a shootout.
What I liked about the original Hot Lead Flyin’ was that it’s mechanics were optimized to be played during a big shootout (as opposed to heads-up or suicide). And while I agree that the original power of the card was too great, the May 1st errata version is so wildly different from the original that mechanically and strategically it is completely unrecognizable: It has become a TYWM for lower values, more or less.
Where is my Big Shootout Lose-2-Win strategy card? The archetype has been all but removed from the game. It’s one thing to correct the power level of a strategy-card, it’s quite another to nullify it almost completely. Do the numerous negative play experiences created by the original card justify gutting the L2W strategy from the game entirely?
The HLF I proposed above (Headline, Resolution, Capped, 3-cost) I feel would be a card that people could still play as part of a larger-shootout Lose-2-Win strategy that wouldn’t “break” a fundamental aspect of the game (shootouts) - possibly restoring balance to an archetype which I think would add more value to the game:
Headline
This makes the card answerable with cards such as A Fight They’ll Never Forget, An Accidental Reunion, No Funny Stuff, and Nightmare At Noon (other Headlines). Furthermore, it prevents multiple copies from being played during the same shootout - no double-dipping cheap casualties.
Resolution
This card not only makes Slight Modifications a hard counter (go gadgets!), but also allows several other Resolution actions or abilities creative workarounds within the Resolution window itself.
Capped
Capping the casualties dealt at the number of casualties taken prevents the abuse of leveraging a higher ratio of dudes sacrificed to dudes wounded or killed - the main problem with the old printing. Furthermore, as the above two changes make the card answerable, it introduces higher risk to playing the card to balance the reward of forcing your opponent to match your casualties 1-for-1. And by the way, “matching 1-for-1” is a situation that happens in Chess, and therefore, fully within the realm of “fair” in my view - especially considering the limits and risks outlined above, and the cost described next.
3-cost
As this strategy incentivizes purchase of cheap dudes, introducing a significant cost not only serves to counterbalance this incentive strategically on behalf of the Lose-2-Win player, but also tactically on behalf of the person playing against them: If they don’t have 3 ghost rock, the opponent has a momentary opportunity to take advantage.
This is an example not only of a way to errata HLF in a way that keeps it balanced against the rest of the cardset, but also keep the “feel” of the card with respect to the title: How could a card named “Hot Lead Flyin’” not be a card that is utilized during a Big Shootout!?
Swider The item nunchucks helps get around that nicely however …
I like the idea of the Nunchucks. I replaced those with the Shotgun in my Zhu Bajie deck, where HLF doesn’t make much sense anyway because Pigging Out beats all alternatives.
However in the Rabbit deck the Nunchucks and HLF make sense, because the 6 of clubs isn’t needed for Pigging Out, and Shotgun is also not as good in that deck as in Zhu Bajie, so Nunchucks seem to be more useful.
Also Focusing Chi is an awesome card in those Kung Fu decks. Once it’s in your hand it basically guarantees an Ace-Pull for HLF and the Legendary Holster, as well as the Faithful Hound.
It doesn’t work for HLF (or any pull made during resolution or take yer lumps), because you draw your shootout hand after you put it on top of your deck and before you pull for HLF. It does guarantee you a successful pull (and likely a second one) for shootout or noon plays.