While a potentially decent play, there’s a strong chance they might not have seen a Meru Mati in their opener and put a Quandary or Enigma there instead. If they happen to have a Destroyer there that isn’t horribly convoluted to rez (requiring an agenda forfeit or giving Bad Pub in some Blue Sun lists), it could reaaally hurt to lose that same Corroder so early, particularly if you’re low on backups.
Also requires the runner to have the Corroder in hand, because you can’t Special Order it and Siphon the same turn without risking a horrible death, at which point the standard “facecheck, if rez Special Order to Siphon next turn, if no rez get Faerie and another breaker maybe down and try anyway” procedure seems to remain the best.
[quote=“Slakker, post:44, topic:3817”]
With all of the Eater decks out right now, Turing plays a little stronger than you might think.
[/quote]Eh. I get that this is true in a general sense, but I also feel like if a deck relies on hitting only one server then either doing it just once each turn will still be okay or the deck wasn’t great anyway. The Eater decks I’m more worried about tend to run backups, though admittedly it’s rare they run an extra Yog or other Decoder, which feels like a mistake to me for basically this reason. If they don’t even run Mimic, then also for Swordsman.
You see eater without mimic often? I hardly see any non mimic breakers anymore online.
I think Turing is way underrated here, it’s more than a one of. It’s best in hb because of the influence, and there’s a great number of ways to punish spending those 3 clicks, or making it impossible to surpass. A str 5 code gate is gear check, tax, and this particular one is bluff bait. Think about it, do you really want to spend 3 clicks on Turing? I’m adding 3 of Turing to a lot of hb decks because of ais, it really hurts without d4v1d, it’s not overly expensive to protect upgrades and assets, and if you have more than one, it lets you keep an Adonis or Eve in that server a long time, and you simply need an answer to all that code gate.
Maybe it’s that half the local folks play Anarch with 2+ D4V1Ds that it doesn’t seem super worth it. I suppose I can see how stacking them can be useful, but the price still seems rough in comparison to the others. Be happy to be proven wrong.
Infrequently see Eater without any Mimics, but often Eater with limited Mimics. Not usually a major issue, as I said the complete lack of decoders tends to be a potential problem, yeah. Same with lists (again, infrequent as they might be) that don’t run a Corroder to deal with Wraparound.
hahhaha well, I was wrong. I played a bunch of games where it didn’t fire in a row, and a couple of games where I drew it early with nothing in the bin and I couldn’t reasonably rez it when they ran. Played some more, fired it a few times, and generally saw people never run archives anymore.
I tried to make up a new way of reviewing cards that would take into account more than just how good the card is. Here is what I’ve got so far.
Power
4 - A very powerful card, or a card played consistently in a number of top decks.
3 - A card that might be played in at least one top deck at least 10% of the time that deck is played.
2 - Any card than can be played unironically.
1 - Jank.
Depth
4 - You could spend weeks discovering new ways to play and play against this card.
3 - This card can be used in a number of different ways and in different strategies.
2 - A simple card with a minor twist.
1 - This card only does one thing.
Uniqueness
4 - This card can’t be compared to any other card.
3 - This card has some quite unusual abilities.
2 - This card has at least one different feature or combination of features worth noticing.
1 - Nothing differentiates this card from most cards of the same type.
Emotion
4 - This card makes someone get off their seat the first time it happens in a game.
3 - Thinking about this card makes people amused or frightened.
2 - You might cock an eyebrow at this card.
4 - Zzzz.
“Need” is a funny word to use. Everyone has their own opinions on cards, and time will always tell which are the best; we read and write reviews because we like doing it, not because they need to exist.
But do we need a comprehensive numerical scale by which to codify our card assessments? Tacking on numerical scales to something that’s very fluid and subjective seems unnecessary, even if card reviews are not themselves moral imperatives.
Everyone that does reviews will do their own, it’ll be fine if that continues. If you do them, you can do them as complexly or simply as best suits you. Standardizing things isn’t so easy as it seems (see also: how different people differentiate “tiers” of decks).
With all those new location specific ices, wouldn t it be good to add esher in shaper decks ? Rp is playing crick for sure, maybe even turing, and Gutenberg is nbn new favorite toy.
I’m not sure if it’s worth slotting in just for those ice. That being said, I will run that card in every single Shaper stealth deck ever. It goes a long way towards unstacking those sentries and code gates that the corp has meticulously placed.
For what it’s worth, I have 2xTuring in my NEXT Rush deck. I don’t have a ton of games with it yet, but it won me the game against a Qimpossible variant.
I think if it was cost 3 instead of 4, I’d be including 3 of in many of my HB decks.
