Recommend
11 
 Thumb up
 Hide
122 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 

Android: Netrunner» Forums » General

Subject: [SCD] Why Hard at Work isn't as bad as you think it is rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Vincent Perry
United States
La Jolla
California
flag msg tools
Woot!
badge
I have overtext!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Edited Kati Jones section to reflect arguments made against and in it's favoer

Hard at Work (HaW) is a different economy card that serves a different purpose from other economy cards. It isn't as flexible as Magnum Opus, or as cheap to get out as Armitage Codebusting. But it isn't meant to do the same job as these cards are. I am doing to defend HaW by comparing it to the four cards it is most commonly compared to, and to show what HaW does that these cards do not do. Hopefully, by the end you'll see that HaW may have a place in some of your decks.

I also want to emphasize that I am defending HaW as a card for Anarch decks. For example, I will mention that an advantage that HaW has over Magnum Opus is the influence cost of MO to Anarchs. I would not import HaW into Shaper.

Wyldside

This is a card with a VERY different purpose than HaW. However, I constantly see people compare it to HaW because of the requirement to lose a click, but also because "cards are harder to get than credits, so why does a card that gets you credits cost MORE than a card that gets you cards?" However, the reason that I don't see this as an unfavorable comparison is that, at some point, you don't want/don't need/can't use more cards, and in those cases Wyldside's extra card isn't worth much. With fewer clicks to get money with, you won't necessarily be able to play all the extra cards you draw and will likely have to start throwing them away. On the other hand, when, as a runner, do you ever feel like you have "enough" money? Very rarely, if ever. The two credits from Wyldside are always welcome, and the extra credits you get allow you to do more with your remaining actions, whereas the cards from Wyldside often do not. Wyldside becomes a nuisance after a while, whereas Hard at Works money is always helpful.

Magnum Opus (MO)

MO has three main advantages over HaW:

1) You can use as many or as few clicks as you like, as opposed to 1/turn of HaW
2) As a program, it can be tutored
3) It isn't subject to destruction by tagging

Those are strong advantages. However, there are disadvantages too

1) 2MU is HUGE. Your MU is a crucial factor to consider when building a deck. Magnum Opus means that either you are not putting other programs in your deck, or that you need to spend money, deckspace, and actions getting out additional MU. You can add HaW to your deck without needed to change your entire program suite

2) It is subject to program destruction, which HaW is not.

3) The influence (for Anarchs). And if you want the cards to support MO (which gives it much of it's advantage over HaW) like Test Run, Self-Modifying Code, and Sacrificial Construct, it's even more influence.

HaW is not going to give you the burstiness that MO is. When I put MO in my shaper deck, it is usually the only strictly econ card in the deck. HaW is MO's little brother for Anarch, that doesn't cost you massive memory.

Armitage Codebusting and Liberated Accounts

Armitage is an awesome card for getting out of a hole. It burns bright for a time. It's flexible, so you get the money right now, or get it later (like MO). But it doesn't provide the game long economic advantage that HaW does. By the time you put out your second Armitage, you are already behind what you would have had with HaW (especially considering that you need to actually draw the second armitage to keep the economy going, which is not a given).

In addition (and this is the great part!) you can use both! Think of HaW as saving you a charge every turn on your Armitage. I personally preferred Liberated Accounts alongside my HaW, but I could see Armitage having a place there as well. It makes Armitage Codebusting a better card.

Kati Jones

Kati Jones CAN be used to a very similar effect to HaW if you click twice and take money, and it has the flexibility to also store money up longer for a bigger payday (with the cost of waiting.) Outside of some edge cases (the main one is that you start your turn with the money, which may be useful for cards like Sundew or City Surveillance) the main advantage that HaW holds over Kati is that Haw is not unique, which means you can play an additional HaW, or play HaW in addition to Kati (which sounds to me like a really great idea...HaW takes one click for sure, and you can spend an additional click if you have one to spare on Kati) You can't double up on Kati Jones.

-----

HaW is not an economy staple, the way that some of the other cards above are. But paying a click every turn to get credits is not much of a handicap in the same way it is to draw extra cards you may not even be able to use (the only time I've found it to be an issue is against RP) since the vast majority of the time you are going to want more money anyway. But HaW is a strong option that can work alongside other economy cards (as I've mentioned, I love having it out with Liberated Accounts...zero to six credits in two clicks is nice.) HaW is about constant economy game long, which gives you a stronger ability to constantly threaten corporate servers. It give you a big econ boost over the course of an entire game. HaW is not a card that gives you a tactical advantage; it gives you a strategic one. I encourage you try it out and see for yourself.
38 
 Thumb up
0.07
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rana Puer
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Why Hard at Work isn't as bad as you think it is
THIS is what it looks like when someone defends an unpopular card and does it very well. Anyone who wants to go on about why Salvage or Exploratory Romp or other bad cards are underrated, do it like this.

Am I walking away thinking Hard at Work is in the top half in terms of power? No. But I am walking away thinking it has some fringe applications and can be the correct call in certain contexts. Well done.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arto H
Finland
Helsinki
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Re: Why Hard at Work isn't as bad as you think it is
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1068312/hard-at-work-is-unde...

There exists a good thread about Hard at Work which has good cost&benefit analyze of HaW. I would just say that some cards are very likely better than others when thinking the most common play scenarios.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vincent Perry
United States
La Jolla
California
flag msg tools
Woot!
badge
I have overtext!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Why Hard at Work isn't as bad as you think it is
Thanks for the link to the thread (you'll note that I participated in it).

I felt that an article written about a card deserved it's own thread.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tables
United Kingdom
Coventry
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Why Hard at Work isn't as bad as you think it is
theodorelogan wrote:
By the time you put out your second Armitage, you are already behind what you would have had with HaW (especially considering that you need to actually draw the second armitage to keep the economy going, which is not a given).


Could you explain the numbers behind this claim a little? As far as I can see, if I play an Armitage like it was Hard at Work (assuming just for now, I only have one or the other in my deck), using it once every turn, then the point I take my final Armitage token, I'm 4 credits ahead of what I would have been if I'd played HaW. From there on I could just take one bit every turn for the next 4 turns, and I'd still be ahead of HaW until that final turn. In other words, it takes HaW 10 turns to catch up to an Armitage played this way. If I instead played another Armitage the next turn, I'd be 1 credit up but a card down, which is at best a very minor advantage for HaW, and it would maintain that level of advantage for another 6 turns. We're now talking at least 15 turns into a game before HaW gets an actual noticable advantage over Armitage. (I guess you could also argue deck composition and needing the multiple Armitages, but I think the first situation showing HaW needs 10 turns to catch up minimum, even if you had played the same number of HaW as Armitage in your deck.

Personally, I think that this means that outside of a few possible interactions I might be interested in (such as Sundew), I should almost always play three Armitage before even considering putting the first HaW in. At that point, I don't know if it's worthwhile - but if I'm crunching the numbers correctly, they're just really bad for HaW to compare with.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Redston
Israel
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How about a comparison to Professional Contacts?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vincent Perry
United States
La Jolla
California
flag msg tools
Woot!
badge
I have overtext!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I Eat Tables wrote:
[q="theodorelogan"By the time you put out your second Armitage, you are already behind what you would have had with HaW (especially considering that you need to actually draw the second armitage to keep the economy going, which is not a given).


Could you explain the numbers behind this claim a little? As far as I can see, if I play an Armitage like it was Hard at Work (assuming just for now, I only have one or the other in my deck), using it once every turn, then the point I take my final Armitage token, I'm 4 credits ahead of what I would have been if I'd played HaW. From there on I could just take one bit every turn for the next 4 turns, and I'd still be ahead of HaW until that final turn. In other words, it takes HaW 10 turns to catch up to an Armitage played this way. If I instead played another Armitage the next turn, I'd be 1 credit up but a card down, which is at best a very minor advantage for HaW, and it would maintain that level of advantage for another 6 turns. We're now talking at least 15 turns into a game before HaW gets an actual noticable advantage over Armitage. (I guess you could also argue deck composition and needing the multiple Armitages, but I think the first situation showing HaW needs 10 turns to catch up minimum, even if you had played the same number of HaW as Armitage in your deck.

Personally, I think that this means that outside of a few possible interactions I might be interested in (such as Sundew), I should almost always play three Armitage before even considering putting the first HaW in. At that point, I don't know if it's worthwhile - but the numbers are just really bad for HaW to compare with.
[/q]

Certainly.

Click 1

Play Armitage (-1cr)
Play HaW (-5cr)

Click 2

Click Armitage (1cr)
Click HaW (-3cr)

Click 3

Click Armitage (5cr)
Click HaW (1cr)

Click 4

Click Armitage (7cr)
Click HaW (3cr)

Click 5

Click Armitage (9cr)
Click HaW (5cr)

Click 6

Click Armitage (11cr)
Click HaW (7cr)

Click 7

Click Armitage (13cr)
Click HaW (9cr)

Click 8

Draw Armitage (13cr)
Click HaW (11cr)

Click 9

Play Armitage (12cr)
Click HaW (13cr)

Of course, that assumes you actually have another Armitage. You don't need to replace HaW. If you don't want to count click to draw, then just consider the 1 credit advantage the effect of the possibility of not having the armitage codebusting in your hand.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Jennings
United States
El Cerrito
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is a nice article, and I hate pure numbers-based analysis of econ cards, but I feel compelled to argue, and unfortunately my only method is pure numbers. Here we go!

If you completely disregard the flexibility advantage of kati jones over hard at work, if you disregard the fact that you need more money up front the turn you play hard at work, if you use kati jones only in the most basic way, it's still strictly better.

Consider. If you play hard at work and take a credit, you're down 4. (this is to counteract the extra click you'll probably spend on Kati. I think this is a reasonable assumption, but even if you value your click higher than 1 in a Hard at Work deck, it won't change the conclusion much. It will mean that HAW is slightly better 1 turn out of 3, and kati is better in two turns out of three by a wider margin). If you play kati and put money on her, you're down 2. from then on out, with hard at work you get 2 more credits, so your net cash from HAW looks like

-4
-2
0
2
4
6
...

With Kati, imagine that you simply use your first click on her every turn. If she has zero or three credits, you put more money on her. If she has 6, you take it. Your money looks like

-2 (3 on kati)
-2 (6 on kati)
4 (0 on kati)
4 (3 on kati)
4 (6 on kati)
10 (0 on kati)
...

Starting turn 2, and every three turns thereafter, HAW catches up. On the other hand, on the other two turns, Kati is ahead. Even if Kati gets trashed at the least opportune time, right after you pushed her to 6, she still is at least as good as HAW.

Using Kati this way is not the best way to use kati, she allows more flexibility, and if you take a risk, she can give higher returns. However, using her this way has exactly one downside against hard at work: Hard at work isn't unique. You can accelerated Hard at Work, but will you?

Kati can be better than hard at work, and in any reasonable scenario is at least as good. As the card pool stands right now, I maintain that Kati Jones is a strictly better card, and any deck with Hard at Work in it will be better if it replaces it with Kati Jones.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Captain Frisk
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
MIND|GAMES
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sechen_rob wrote:
I maintain that Kati Jones is a strictly better card, and any deck with Hard at Work in it will be better if it replaces it with Kati Jones.


+1. To add insult to injury - you would never want both of them in your deck because you don't want to click twice for money every turn.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Captain Frisk
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
MIND|GAMES
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
theodorelogan wrote:

Click 8

Draw Armitage (13cr)
Click HaW (11cr)

Click 9

Play Armitage (12cr)
Click HaW (13cr)

Of course, that assumes you actually have another Armitage....


This comparison is a little unfair - given that you've installed another armitage but haven't yet gained any of the money from it (although you are correct, HAW will be ahead for the rest of the game (if Armitage had the restriction that it could only be clicked 1x per turn)

However - you don't need to install that second armitage. You could have just clicked for cash - where HAW wouldn't have caught up until Click 10.

Also - if you have 3 HAW in your deck to get it out early (because its no good if installed late), then you have to account for the possibility / likelyhood of drawing that card dead in the future.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vincent Perry
United States
La Jolla
California
flag msg tools
Woot!
badge
I have overtext!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think it is reasonable to assume that I will be doing a regular click for credits. In fact, in a deck like HaW, I'll rarely be doing that.

My comparison would look like this

Click 1

Play Haw (-5)
Play Kati (-2)

Click 2

Click HaW (-3)
Click Kati (-2)

Click 3

Click HaW (-1)

Now you have a choice. Do you take the money off Kati to get to +1?
Or do you click to put money on Kati and stay at -2 (less than HaW)?

Now, we both know that the player who played Kati is not going to take money here, which means that, for this turn, HaW has provided more economy. But let's say you choose 1) since you want to prove that Kati is strictly better, and at all times provides more economy.

Click 4

Click HaW (1)
Click Kati (1)

Click 5

Click HaW (3)

Do you:
Click Kati for money (4)?
or do you put money on Kati (1) to (gasp!) fall behind HaW?

Which is my point. Kati is strictly WORSE at providing a constant stream of credits. The best she can do is 3 every other turn, whereas HaW provides 2 every turn. More money, at a steadier rate. But no one is using Kati for a constant stream of money. They are using it for a massive influx every few turns.

Not to mention the threat of getting tagged (because your money can't defend you from a trace because it is on Kati) and getting her trashed (and having spend all those clicks for nothing.) Again, this is another scneario in which Kati is not better (if HaW gets trashed, at least you got money on the turns that it was in play.)

Which is exactly my point. Kati gives you choice of spending clicks for nothing now for a bonanza later. There are advantages and disadvnatage to that. Having a constant money supply to threaten the corp with (so they don't know when you are going to attack) is an advantage.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Redston
Israel
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe we'll get an Anarch ID with the ability "Whenever you lose a click, gain 1c." Then Wyldside becomes more click-efficient than PC and HaW becomes Kati that puts the 3c in your pocket rather than on herself.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
João Almeida
msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
If you want to prove a bad card is good, you build a deck using that card, beat top decks and then share your reports.

Your post is very well written, but sadly, when you have a card that looks as bad as HaW, you need more than rhetoric to prove your point.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Jennings
United States
El Cerrito
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
theodorelogan wrote:
I don't think it is reasonable to assume that I will be doing a regular click for credits. In fact, in a deck like HaW, I'll rarely be doing that.

My comparison would look like this

Click 1

Play Haw (-5)
Play Kati (-2)

Click 2

Click HaW (-3)
Click Kati (-2)

Click 3

Click HaW (-1)

Let's imagine the worst case scenario. You installed kati the first turn, but declined to put money on her so that the comparison to Hard at Work is exactly apples to apples. Then it looks like this.

Click 1

Play Haw (-5)
Play Kati (-2)

Click 2

Click HaW (-3)
Click Kati (-2)

Click 3

Click HaW (-1)
Click Kati(-2)

Click 4

Click HaW (1)
Click Kati(4)

Click 5

Click HaW (3)
Click Kati(4)

Click 6

Click HaW (5)
Click Kati(4)

In this scenario, in which the kati player declined to click her the turn he installed her, Hard at Work is better than Kati by one, once every three turns. Kati is better by 1 once every three turns, and kati is better by 3 once every three turns. You can use kati to get a bonanza periodically, but you don't have to. My point is that if you commit to using kati only in a pretty suboptimal way (don't click her turn one, never use her ability to try to get a higher credit efficiency, never exercise her ability to not use a click for a turn, she's still at least as good as Hard at Work.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Redston
Israel
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Captain_Frisk wrote:
Also - if you have 3 HAW in your deck to get it out early (because its no good if installed late), then you have to account for the possibility / likelyhood of drawing that card dead in the future.

It doesn't become dead, as it's not unique. Just imagine having 3xHaW installed..! Every turn you get 6c plus a remaining click to do a semi-Stimhack run every turn! surprise jk
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ony Moose
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kroen wrote:
Captain_Frisk wrote:
Also - if you have 3 HAW in your deck to get it out early (because its no good if installed late), then you have to account for the possibility / likelyhood of drawing that card dead in the future.

It doesn't become dead, as it's not unique. Just imagine having 3xHaW installed..! Every turn you get 6c plus a remaining click to do a semi-Stimhack run every turn! surprise jk


With Wyldside and Starlight Crusade too you can Draw 2 cards, gain 6C each turn! If you had the presence of mind to install JoshuaB beforehand you can then gain a click after losing all your clicks and play a double event for only one click! (Just hope the corp doesn't trash JoshuaB afterwards...)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Jennings
United States
El Cerrito
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If anarch had a card that did something like

Slacking Off
"At the beginning of your turn, choose as many resources as you like. treat those resources as if their text box were blank until the beginning of the next turn"

it would make hard at work on par with Kati, it would make starlight funding workable, and it would make wyldside amazing. I really hope they print that card.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maybe Next Time
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Hard at Work enables gameplay that was simply not possible before it was added to the card pool.

With a Wyldside draw engine by turn 10 I can usually have all 3 Hard at Works (Hards at Works?) out. Then I proceed to shout "Can't touch this!" at the copr player as I bathe in credit splendours and decide which 2 from the sea of cards in my hand to discard at the end of each turn.

The only thing missing then is a mop, which the corp player would use to dry off his tears.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brendan Cavalier
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hraklea wrote:
If you want to prove a bad card is good, you build a deck using that card, beat top decks and then share your reports.

Your post is very well written, but sadly, when you have a card that looks as bad as HaW, you need more than rhetoric to prove your point.


He's played and beat my decks using HaW ... now do I strictly play 'Top Decks' ... no. But I do pretty well, and seen in practice, over several turns, is no where near as bad as the rap its received. That being said ... In my Noise Darwin deck, I'll be keeping my econ engine of Pawnshop/Wyldside/Casts/Liberated + Kati.

Also, you're standing on rhetoric yourself in your assumption that HaW is a 'bad card'.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Jennings
United States
El Cerrito
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hard at work isn't terrible it's just strictly worse than Kati. If Kati Jones didn't exist, you might even want it in your deck, but as it is, you really shouldn't. Consider the following card

Less Sure Gamble
Event, cost 6
Gain 10 credits
You cannot include this in a deck with Sure Gamble.

Would you ever play that card? No, because there's another card that is strictly better than it. I would argue that Kati Jones is more better than Hard at Work than Sure Gamble is to Less Sure Gamble, but it doesn't really matter how much better the superior card is, it only matters that it's superior.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vincent Perry
United States
La Jolla
California
flag msg tools
Woot!
badge
I have overtext!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Hard at work isn't terrible it's just strictly worse than Kati.


Strictly worse means, "worse in all situations" and no, it isn't strictly worse since you can't have more than one Kati (and yes, I have played two HaW's and I have also played Kati AND HaW!)

There are lots of highly unlikely edge cases but those are so unlikely as to be not worth considering. When talking about a card I like to consider the current cardpool, not what might come along later to fix it.

I do see what you are saying about Kati. If your goal was to be essentially equal to a single HaW you could do it, so why not replace HaW with Kati and play a janky Kati with the option to play with it correctly?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Jennings
United States
El Cerrito
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here are the cases I can think of where hard at work is better.

Case 1:
You didn't put money on Kati the turn you installed her. It is now exactly two turns later (or 5 or 8, if you're following the kati strategy outlined above), so you have one fewer credit than if you had played hard at work. You run on your third click with 1 credit (or your second with 0), and you hit a trace ice and take a tag. You are going to be one short, so you can't shake the tag, so you lose kati. This wouldn't have happened with HaW.

Of course, if you had run into this situation in 2/3s of the turns it wouldn't have mattered, and in fact would go the other way giving the disadvantage to Hard at work, or if you had chosen to click kati for the last click every turn instead of the first, allowing yourself the flexibility to take a credit in case of an emergency, it wouldn't be a problem.

Case 2:
Similar to above, except the corp uses sea source or Midseason Replacements and they have exactly enough to tag you and trash a resource, and it's on the one turn in three where you have 1 less money from kati than hard at work. Same objection as above, because 2/3 of the time, it goes the other way.

Case 3:
The face that kati takes a click, wheras Hard at Work simply makes you lose a click. As of right now, this only works with sundew. You can run on sundew with your first click if you're running hard at work. You can do this with Kati too, but then you can't use her as your first click, so you're behind the Hard at Work player on 2/3 of turns instead of 1/3 of turns.

All three of these are extreme edge cases. Can anyone come up with one which isn't?

Edit: Okay, you found one. If you actually want 2 Hard at Works, that's something sufficiently different that kati doesn't approximate it when you play her badly. If you have a dek that wants that, then hard at work might be the card for you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Rubin
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sechen_rob wrote:
Hard at work isn't terrible it's just strictly worse than Kati. If Kati Jones didn't exist, you might even want it in your deck, but as it is, you really shouldn't. Consider the following card

Less Sure Gamble
Event, cost 6
Gain 10 credits
You cannot include this in a deck with Sure Gamble.

Would you ever play that card? No, because there's another card that is strictly better than it. I would argue that Kati Jones is more better than Hard at Work than Sure Gamble is to Less Sure Gamble, but it doesn't really matter how much better the superior card is, it only matters that it's superior.
If that card existed, I would include 3 copies and also 3 copies of Sure Gamble. Yes, it's not as good as Sure Gamble, but nothing is as good as Sure Gamble. That's only slightly worse, so still very much worth playing, especially in a deck with card draw.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Jennings
United States
El Cerrito
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
theodorelogan wrote:
Quote:
Hard at work isn't terrible it's just strictly worse than Kati.


Strictly worse means, "worse in all situations" and no, it isn't strictly worse since

1) Tagging and destroying Kati means you lose the money (and clicks) you spent...which is the consequence of getting your money

2) You can't have more than one Kati (and yes, I have played two HaW's!)


You're right of course, and I'm exaggerating slightly when I say strictly worse. Your case 2 is legit, but I take some issue with your case 1, because even if you play Kati pretty badly, it comes out ahead in the tag+destroy for 2 turns out of every three in the game, in spite of the fact that kati builds up credits in a way that hard at work doesn't.

So, if you build an anarch deck where you would eventually like to take 4 credits a turn and only have 2 clicks, Kati no longer wins on a pure numbers comparison. You are sacrificing flexibility for power, and you might want that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rayne Smith
United States
Beaverton
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sechen_rob wrote:
I would argue that Kati Jones is more better than Hard at Work than Sure Gamble is to Less Sure Gamble, but it doesn't really matter how much better the superior card is, it only matters that it's superior.


Actually, the only proof I've seen posted here is that Kati Jones is only just as good as HaW at providing a constant stream of credits (which isn't really her purpose). That is assuming that she isn't trashed in which you clicks were wasted. The clicks wouldn't have been wasted with HaW.

I'm not necessarily saying HaW is amazing, but this thread has definitely made me consider put them in my deck and trying them out. The only problem is I typically run Wyldside and I doubt I want both...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.