Tapwrm is the most inefficient and least-reliable way to get 1 credit a turn in the game. At 2 credits a turn, it’s about average. 3 credits/turn it’s actually good. Oh hey look, the Corp has at least 15 credits, in which case, they have a big econ advantage.
That’s weird because you totally said Clot was the problem (of those three) and I replied that Clone Chip is the problem, already restricted, and restricting Clot too is a misidentification of what’s wrong in the meta. If you have to pick one of the three, SacCon is the appropriate target, not Clot. It’s the enabler.
Also this argument is separate: “Out of Tapwrm/SacCon/Clot, Clot is the problem.”
"New hardware is only good as long as Corp doesn’t have a big econ advantage."
Those certainly look different.
And pointing out that Tapwrm is playable is contradicting the premise of the second argument, and doesn’t have anything to do with the first unless you were being extremely defensive about your arguments being fundamentally flawed.
And, here’s another counter-indication for Hippo: Let’s assume you rez a Tollbooth on the outside.
You’re down 8 credits. They break it with, lets say David because that’s probably the best breaker for this.
They’re down 3 credits from encounter, 3 credits from David install, 2 credits from Hopper install. Hey,
that’s 8 credits, too. And you’re both down a card (Tollbooth, Hippo). Seems like an equivalent exchange,
instead of Tollbooth’s normal use-case of being a constant economy drain. Hippo is honestly well-positioned to fight a meta that’s built around FC3.0 being a very good piece of ice and specifically counters it, forcing the Corp to actually put a second ICE on the outside of the server if they want to continue to benefit from FC3.
So, trying to restrict it is a misidentification of what’s wrong with the meta.
There, happy? Now I’ve spent a bunch of words to say the exact same thing that was said with fewer words and a more focused argument.