This one is for Survivor Tony as a precursor to Brute Force.

Anyone else would prefer to play an actual weapon, but Tony's always been plagued by a lack of good weapons early to the point where he'd consider Kukri. The .41 Derringer's great but the Mauser C96 has a tendency to jam. This is when Tony needs to Improvise. Tony's rich enough that he won't mind paying 1 resource just for a +1 for the followup +1 +1 damage.

I am wondering if Prescient is a good add to Sister Mary, especially paired with Olive McBride, it makes it really likely that you pull a token, so it turns Prescient almost into Resourceful.

Aim at Ward of Radiance and you got yourself a good encounter prot against non- treachery cards.

Disclaimer: I haven't run any detailed math here and haven't searched all the cards for some uber combos. I just made my thoughts regarding this card, the reviews and my personal game experience so far.

If I were able to give this card a revamp I would change two things to make it (in my view) a compatible big gun beside the others.
I would increase the cost to 6 and change the text to something like this:

Uses (8 ammo.)
Spend 1 ammo: Fight. you get +1 for this attack. This attack deals +1 damage. As an additional cost you may spend up to three additional ammo. You get +1 and deal +1 damage for each additional ammo.

with this, the overall performance would be much closer to the other guns and you have essentially two fire modi:

1. single fire: for 4 XP you get 8x 2 damage at +1 for 6 ress. This is a 25% discount over the .45 Automatic (my "gold standard" for weapons). This discount comes with all the drawbacks of a big gun: requires two hands at once, one big target for asset hating treacheries.
2. burst fire: here comes the flexibility (and the justification for XP)! Gain action compression by spending the exact amount of bullets you need for your enemy. Lose a portion of your discount.

Let's see how this compares to the other big guns in our arsenal

1. Shotgun: spending 4 ammo gives you 2 shots at +4 for 5 dmage. Same burst potential, more reliable damage, less synergy with extra ammo cards. I think the "new BAR" has the advantage here.
2. Lightning Gun: spending 2 ammo gives 4 shots at +3 for 3 damage. So one action more than the lighting gun, at a lesser to hit chance. Again harder to reload. I think both weapons are roughly on par, depending on the campaign and player needs.
3. Flamethrower: spending 3 ammo gives 2 shots at +4 for 4 damage and leaving you with to ammo left. Between this two it comes down to flexibility vs. burst. Both weapons are capable of doing max 16 damage, but single shot "new BAR" needs double the amount of actions. Again I think both cover different terrain and would see both their use in game.

Right now, I am no big fan of a big gun guardian. But with the flexibility of the "new" BAR? Yes, could see me using it as a mid campaign upgrade!

PS: I could think of a third "automatic fire" mode with a second action option which could look something like this:
Exhaust M1918 BAR and spend 5 ammo: Fight. You get +2 for this attack. If this attack is successful, instead of its standard damage, you may assign up to 4 damage among enemies engaged with you (any additional damage adds to this total). Enemies damaged by this attack will not attack during the enemy phase.
So you have some suppression mechanic at the cost of damage. I don't know how such a mechanic would balance but flavor wise I think this would be a cool addition.

Lita is bonkers with One-Two Punch! Because, it provides two fight actions within one action, you also get her extra damage twice.

I was facing Narôgath, covered with the Mask of Umôrdhoth as Nathaniel Cho in a 2 player game, so he had 12 health.

• 1st action: Mano a Mano (1) for 2 damage (including Cho's special ability)
• 2nd and 3rd action: One-Two Punch (0) for 5 damage each

Note, this would not have worked out with the (double) Masked Hunter, because he lacks the Monster-trait and would have had 10 health with the second mask!

Despite surface similarities (both give cards and resources), Nothing Left to Lose serves a very different purpose from Drawing Thin.

Drawing Thin is sustained economy. It's for a deck that constantly spending resources for expensive events or asset recursion. It takes an install cost and actions to trigger its effects. Track Shoes can make it actionless at times, but there's the install cost of Track shoes to consider as well and you need to find both cards and play them. In exchange for an early tempo loss, you get a steady flow of cards and resources every round to fuel your expensive cards.

Nothing Left to Lose is the premier burst economy card. It's for a deck that needs some money to play out its starting assets, then no longer needs more resources, either because the deck is cheap or the assets will provide enough economy. Dark Horse builds are the archetypal example, but it's by no mean limited to Dark Horse builds. For example a Yorick build recurring Rite of Sanctification once set up no longer needs sustain economy from Drawing Thin. All he needs is the starting economy and cards to set up in the first place. In such decks, Nothing Left to Lose will outperform Drawing Thin in set-up tempo and in deck consistency.

The remove from game effect is actually beneficial, since you should only need to play this once per copy in your deck. If you find yourself cycling your deck and still need to play Nothing Left to Lose, you probably should have taken Drawing Thin instead.

It's also an auto-include when when you get Paranoia or Amnesia or Tower as your random basic weakness. Also as existing reviews point out, there's no need to wait to get full value out of it: gaining 5 resources is already better than Emergency Cache (3) even if you're not drawing any cards, as long as you can put the resources to good use.