Btw I am calling it now, one of the legend cards will give grifters influence, but probably at a cost of 1 gr.
Is there a post somewhere that talks about these legend cards?
Rulebook.
Keen eyes again. I’ll petition design for a reprint of “Sheriff’s Watching” from Classic as “Swider’s Watching”. 
2 Likes
Somebody else mentioned “legend” cards on uk fb forum 
, so I knew what to look for. Also just to clarify something, I am totally speculating, I do not have any inside info.
When we were asked about feedback few months ago a lot of people complained about low staring influence and rather poor economy, so I imagine legend cards as “impovements” that try to fix those two issues.
1 Like
Oh interesting! Which rulebook is this? The word ‘legend’ doesn’t appear in the original rulebook, the composite rules, or the rules compendium. Well, according to my ctrl+f anyways.
1 Like
Have you seen page 7 of the 1.1 Rulebook in the Resources section on Pinebox website?
2 Likes
http://pineboxentertainment.com/wp-content/uploads/public/doomtown_rulebook_v1.1.pdf
Edit: @Doomdog is faster on the draw than I am, but have provided a link! Like William Munny in Unforgiven I take time to aim.
3 Likes
Don’t know how I missed that one! Thanks 
I haven’t read the entire thing, but as of page 5 this updated rules document suffers from wording inconsistencies and grammatical errors. This was a problem with DTR in the past and perhaps should be given more care this time around. I also recall seeing other members making comments about templating issues many times over the last 2 years.
I’m really not trying to pick nits and seem ungracious. I’m only making these comments and observations because I truly care that the rules document is a professional, quality product and most importantly, unambiguous.
To highlight some of what I’m talking about, I picked a section that I think could use a revision for clarity and consistency. My thoughts are by no means ‘more correct’ and are merely things I noticed that could potentially increase clarity and consistency.
italic text indicates my comments
Section 2.5 Cheatin’
Draw Hands can either be considered to be Legal or Illegal (also known as a Cheating).
This section is titled Cheatin’ and the word Cheating (with a g) is the officially defined and capitalized term used here. This word is different from every card that has the word Cheatin’ printed on it, and it is different from the original rule book, the composite rules, and the title of this section.
A draw hand in other areas of this section, Draw Hand is capitalized but here it is in lowercase. Having some official terms capitalized and others not at arbitrary points throughout the document seems inconsistent and therefore a little unprofessional.
is Legal if there aren’t any non-Joker cards that share the same suit and value. double negatives are more difficult to parse than sentences that do not contain them. To be more clear, this could read something like “A draw hand is Legal if all of its cards have a different suit and value pair, excluding the chosen value of any Jokers.”
A Draw Hand is Cheating if there are at least two cards in it that share the same suit and value. After a player reveals a Cheating Draw Hand, other players will have the opportunity to resolve Cheatin’ Resolutions, or other effects. here the Cheatin’ term we are all used to is used, where as above the word Cheating was officially defined.
A Joker never causes an otherwise Legal Draw Hand to become a Cheatin’ Draw Hand inconsistency - here Cheatin’ Draw Hand is used, where above Cheating Draw Hand and Illegal were used.
regardless of the suit and value chosen for the Joker. However, if a card effect changes the suit and/or value of a non-Joker card to a card suit and value missing apostrophe s on the word card. This sentence could be re-worded more elegantly. that already exists in the hand, the Draw Hand is now considered to be Cheatin’. but not Cheating as was defined above
In the original rulebook, we already have two terms for Cheatin’ hands - illegal draw hands and Cheatin’ hands. The word illegal only appears twice in the entire document - once to say that Jokers do not themselves make hands illegal, and once to say that illegal draw hands and Cheatin’ hands are equivalent.
The word Cheatin’ is the overwhelming choice to describe cheatin’ hands, cards, abilities, and resolutions.
The word Cheating appears 0 times.
In the Composite Rules, illegal appears 5 times because they added rules about illegal posses.
Cheatin’ again is used overwhelmingly to describe hands, cards, abilities, and resolutions.
Cheating appears 0 times.
Here we have Illegal Draw Hands (capitalized sometimes and the inconsistency seems arbitrary), Cheating Draw Hands, and Cheatin’ Draw Hands. Why are we changing from slightly inconsistent to more inconsistent? I would hope that templating would become tighter this go around.
I would be happy to proofread and submit my comments regarding the document if the rules team would find that helpful or useful. I am by no means perfect and often type wrongly and not always type things that are not impossible to parse and am not always perfect with punctuation. But I feel that given time and careful consideration these little things can be spotted and ironed out.
I hope that my comments have’t caused too many bad feels, I’m just trying to help 
3 Likes
Thanks for the feedback!
We have been slammed trying to get everything up and running and naturally some things like this slipped through the cracks (not an excuse, just reality for a team of our size.) We’ll take a look at it and see if we can’t clean it up. We prioritized other things, which meant some other things slipped through the cracks, of which I apologize for.
We are going to do our best to iron out all these issues as soon as possible. Please understand we only have limited resources so we are working as fast as we can.
Cheers!
3 Likes
Not at all @soulblight, I think you made a reasonable point in a helpful and constructive tone. As @BeastEG lays out, priorities had to be made, but the rules team will hopefully be able to consolidate these various issues and sort them out.
Posts like yours are a good example of the right way to go about this kind of thing. The rules guys might take you up on your kind offer!
3 Likes
There is one rule that could be added to the rulebook that is not clear for everybody, when during shootout or resolution plays one of the posses is empty the shootout immediately ends, but if the shootout goes to “take yer lumps” step, even if one posse is empty after taking casualties, the shootout doesn’t end and the other player has an option to run home. I think this should be added to the rulebook ( btw I was hoping this would be changed in the new rulebook as the game is more strategic and less snowbally if the shootout would immediately end).
We can definitely take a look at it!
Thanks!
EDIT: @swider, what was the rule you were hoping was changed?
My understanding is that in classic if one of the posses was empty it always meant the immediate end of the shootout, there was no option for a winner to run away home. I was hoping this particular change would be reverted as I enjoyed the game a bit more when we played it this way ( for a few months we played this rule wrongly until one of the experienced players told us we have an option to run away), in my opinion it adds a bit of strategy to the game as contesting the deeds is a bit more tricky.
Cool, thanks! I’ll bring it up with the team. We probably won’t be able to get to it until we clean up the rules and stuff so they are good to go!
I possibly shouldn’t add a comment that I would like this rule to be changed. The important thing is that a lot of players don’t know how the rules work now and I believe this particular situation deserves its own entry in a rulebook.
2 Likes
While CHANGING a rule won’t be done without careful consideration (if at all), thanks for suggesting CLARIFICATIONS or areas that need clarifying that can make rules easier to understand.
On the topic of Grifters in response to the (likely more balanced) Rico reduction:
It has been said that the game was skewed towards the “Slide” strategy from the start by virtue of having a differential in the ratio between Influence-Cost and Control-Cost as concerns dudes and deeds which has only accelerated with the expansion of the card base. Let’s assume this argument holds some weight. My personal opinion is that the Morgan Regulators and Protection Racket were created to address this somewhat by introducing elements “into the meta” that might dissuade that strategy.
What I’d like to suggest is that Grifters, often being faction-neutral (like Jake Smiley), could be a site by which to address this fundamental disfunction, and that instead of utilizing subtractive errata - like removing Rico’s influence - consider utilizing additive errata - such as adding a point of influence to Genesee “Gina” Tailfeathers.
My 2gr.
2 Likes