Bonus points for editing the template to note that this is Jam 4. Those points are lost however, due to neglecting to use the noble ampersand(&) in your title. The usage of cards is different, and fits the theme, but I don't know that players should have 30 of them. A smaller number would make prediction/card counting a bit easier, which seems to be half the point of using cards. Damage as ability loss is interesting, though there's a bit of inconsistent capitalization on the Ability names and weapons. I also think the list sizes can be a bit too large for the amount of tracking that each character requires. Looking at the units, each list seems to have a fair number that are basically just worthless to activate, and the card mechanic means that giving the player lots of them is more of a handicap than a compensating factor, since there's a finite number of cards that will allow them success, and the margins between them and better units is notable, so most of the time you activate them, they fail, and a decent chunk of that time, it's an additional gut punch because that same card might have worked for one of your other units. This is another reason why you might want to reduce the player's card counts. 20 has the secondary advantage of not requiring more than a single deck for two players. I guess the slash means that the player can choose one, though that's not defined anywhere I can track. By that rationale, the posse is clearly the weakest, with the band in second if they take no rookies, or last with them, and the raiding party clearly the strongest list. Not sure the weapons distinctions add enough to be worth including either, but they're relatively inoffensive

In terms of design, the above issues really do seem to hinder the game, and I can't commend it there. It does some things that are relatively original, but I'm not sure they can be said to function well either. It also seems to have no real relation to the Jam's theme overall that I can track. The injured state could maybe be a sop to the theme, but it's threadbare at best, mostly in theory enabling a player to keep points away from other players, but largely functioning to slow down the game.

Just saw the comment about being able to claim your own character's bounties. That's amusing, but the rules as written don't really imply it except partially by omission, and I don't know that it really ties it that much closer to the redesigning failure theme.