Plus drug dealer = no cost for drug dealer as the card draw is on the corp turn and the credit loss on your turn if you love good him each turn.

Good call. You can also use it to moderate Wyldside or Woman in the Red Dress.

That's a lot of edge case usage (even Drug Dealer) for the amount of card support, but it's there and could be useful in some decks outside of Adam's need to mitigate his directives.

I was going to caution against this for use in situational cases where you would only use it on a card some of the time (like Wyldeside and WitRD) because the effect is mandatory; meaning that SOMETHING is going to get blanked whether you like it or not.  But then I remembered that that you can choose the order of "When your turn begins..." effects and many decks run several different "When your turn begins..." cards that you could blank for no effect at all (use your PW before this, then blank it, use you UWC, then blank it, etc.)

Does the same effect work with Joshua B?

Does the same effect work with Joshua B?

No.

It's covered in the FAQ regarding situations where you'd trash Joshua B (with Aesop's, for example) after activating him for the extra click. The tag still occurs irrespective of the trash. Once you get JB's click, you get the tag.

I see people giving this card grief for not being optional and that kind of puzzles me. Couldn't you just target Dr. Lovegood himself with this effect if there was nothing else you wanted to blank?

I see people giving this card grief for not being optional and that kind of puzzles me. Couldn't you just target Dr. Lovegood himself with this effect if there was nothing else you wanted to blank?

I don't see why not.

I see people giving this card grief for not being optional and that kind of puzzles me. Couldn't you just target Dr. Lovegood himself with this effect if there was nothing else you wanted to blank?

I think so. However, you then are in the situation where you paid $2 to install a card that cancels itself. Obviously it would be an "if necessary" usage of the card rather than the normal usage, but still...hardly a compelling argument in favor of the card.

Why is that any worse than if the card's ability was optional? Either way, the end result is effectively that you don't use it for a turn.

Why is that any worse than if the card's ability was optional? Either way, the end result is effectively that you don't use it for a turn.

It isn't worse. Neither is it better. It is just a neutral data point and thus, not a compelling argument in favor of the card.

The suggestion of TheNameWasTaken's question, at least as I read it, is that the card isn't as bad as some people think, as due to timing structure of turns it may effectively be optional despite not being explicitly worded as such. 

So, yes, that seems like a valid interpretation of the card's effect. But, the ability to turn itself off doesn't turn the card from a "meh" to a "awesome". Sure, the card may not be as problematic as it first seemed on a straight read, but the ability to turn itself off still isn't a compelling reason to go from disliking the card to liking the card for me. 

Now, speaking for myself I don't _hate_ this card, but I do have concerns about the viability of Adam's card set and the fiddly nature of his directives and the cards in his set such as this one and the card drawer that interact (indirectly) with them. That sort of busy card interactions are not my cup of tea. I plan on trying Adam, but I strongly suspect it will not be a good fit for my play style and vice versa.

I reckon this is pretty strong with the Source though.