There is some opportunity though to make a new card of the same name, different value, different affects, different cost. Say, if they were to print a ‘Tin Star’ that was cost value 6, cost 2, gave the dude the deputy key word, and +1 bullets if there is a Law Dogs dude in the posse. Just an idea.
The rules for deck construction have a built in limit on cards of the same name. So far only applying to xp version dudes, it basicly is a non issue for sane decks because who need 5 of a unique dude. We could move into having multiple versions of a goods/action to choose from.
Along this same train of thought, but circling back to the need for errata in the first place, I think there is often ways to tweak the environment by releasing new cards as opposed to obsessing over the old. My personal belief is that much of the angst over imbalance is reactionary: “such and such card/deck is messing with my two-month-long tournament scene!” Do we even know how Mugging would have affected Paralysis Mark as written? How would Hot Lead Flyin’ have changed over time, given the chance? I’m no rules guru, but I am a practitioner of patience. Especially considering practical delays: from design to playtest, back to design, to print, to community (who will break every environment anyway).
Rather than errata bad cards into good (or broken cards into mediocre) maybe newly printed cards can make formerly bad cards better (and broken cards reasonable)! In my mind, that’s the best of both worlds.
Obviously there is a ceiling. This is when new arcs allow for reboots.
I think that the relaunch gives us a lot of latitude to correct some of the errors and omissions that were, in hindsight, obvious from a design perspective. This is unique and I wouldn’t expect this level of errata to be common after the game comes relaunches.
Not familiar with the arguments for/against if there is a history of such a discussion. That said, I wouldn’t think it’d require more than a special clause in the section of the rulebook describing how it’s Pull mechanic is inverted, and a change in the “reminder text” of a very fews cards (thinking of Morgan Research Institute).
Plus it’d situate the number of skills at the nice even number of Five, and open up design space to “invert” other skill checks (I am reminded of a couple of Spirits from Classic).
“Raw deal did it. They were called throwback cards. They were a bad idea”
I disagree. It was a great idea in raw deal. They just took it too far for some of the cards. The concept of making updated versions of new cards (but not errataing it, so you don’t have to remember the changes) is not a bad concept.
Richard Slavin is a dude who could use a boost. Perhaps be at any deed rather than at an out-of-town one, or change the way the pull works? Would he just be better if he was a bit cheaper instead?
Harold Aimslee shouldn’t boot to use his ability.
Does anyone ever play The Town Hall? Only time I remember seeing it be useful was for keeping Fred Aims with a load of +upkeep conditions attached around. May be better at cost 4?
Might Doyle’s Hoyle see a bit more use if it was cheaper?
Telegraph Office was useful in the early days when everyone ran multiple copies of Steven Wiles, but it’s another one that’s fallen from use as the meta evolved. Could that use a buff? Extra production or cost 3 perhaps?
If there was a Core Out-of-Town Deed, Richard might be worth the investment. Especially if the deed discounted Mystical Goods. This might also boost Doyle’s into being run more frequently.
Agreed about Harold.
I think part of the problem these two cards don’t see more play is tied to the challenge of making viable starting posses. In order to start 5 influence, you are typically only left with 2-3 ghost rock left (assuming the loss of lowball), so including 2 or 3 cost deeds instead of 4 or 5 cost deeds is the difference between being able to kickstart an economy or not. Ergo, when choosing deeds to include for certain values, I think folks often pass over these deeds in favor of deeds that are slightly cheaper.
My solution then would not be to errata the deeds to being cheaper, but to address the challenge of starting viable posses from every home.
I know this will seem minor, might rarely be an actual concern, but dang does this bug me:
Kidnapping should not be able to target your own dudes. You should not be able to form a kidnapping posse if the posse is illegal.
It is abusable, and it is just painful to explain to people what is happening when Allie helps Irving Paterson fail to kidnap herself to send herself home booted and gain a GR.
Kidnappin’ should say mark an opposing dude and form a legal posse. What you’re describing sounds ridiculous and can’t be as intended but works as written, and I wouldn’t be happy if someone pulled that on me during a game. Coachwhip! got an errata to stop it from targeting any dude, I agree the same should apply here.
