Definitely up there for worst card in the game. At a measly $1/click this takes 7 turns to pay off. If we boost our base efficiency to $1.5/click then it takes a whopping 16 turns to pay off! And it's extremely vulnerable to tags. And it reduces you to 3 usable clicks per turn with no flexibility. Nevermind, after going through this analysis this IS the worst runner card in the game by a fair margin. You severely handicap yourself the moment you throw this onto the field. The only corp card that comes close is Salvage. This card is stupidly bad.

I thought of a use for this card: introduce a new rule that if you play this card within the first 3 turns of the game and you still win, you get to slap your opponent across the face as hard as you can for every agenda point they are short from 7.

I feel sad for people who can only see limitations instead of possibilities.

I feel sad for people who can only see limitations instead of possibilities.

Explain the possibilities you see.

Explain the possibilities you see.

Was meant as a general statement but sure. Though I fully expect the kind of people I was refering to, to yet again apply their "the glass is half-empty"-kinda view on matters.
The obvious comparison would be Magnum Opus, which quite a few people tend to like. They have similar costs and do about the same job.
Now MO you are not forced to use and you can use it more than once per turn giving it more money grubbing versatility. Plus it isn´t a resource so it cannot be easily trashed (though there are still ways to do it if the corp is so inclined)
Hard at Work however has the advantage of not taking up 2 MU. So you don´t have to either make a massive MU buildup or be forced to trash it yourself to make room for other programs. For the Anarch player it will also mean that you can spend your influence on something else.
Again it does carry the obvious limitation that the player is forced to spend a click each turn, making it a challenge if you want to carry out a plan which requires all 4 runner clicks. This is not so tough to play around if you are aware that it should be part of you play strategy. In the end that problem is also solveable with Aesop´s Pawnshop.
The way I see it, in this comparison, you play MO for click versatility and quicker pay-offs whereas HaW is for MU versatility and longterm planning (I will concede that it is best played in the early game).
It all depends on your style and my original point is more that the cave-manish approach of "me not like" isn´t an argument in itself (also people who refuse to see possibilities lack a certain degree of imagination, which is what I find sad).

Also this is a game. Try playing with it and the combos it can provide.
Perhaps you will be surprised at what you discover along the way.
That goes for all cards oc, not just HaW.

I'm not going to go so far as saying this card has no place in any deck ever (niche builds, future card pool etc) but the elephant in the room here isn't Opus, it's Armitage.

The card costs one less to install, gains the same per click and isn't mandatory. It's also 0 influence in ALL factions. The only thing HaW does better than Armitage is never run out, but the extra install cost means it takes longer to see the same profit you could have got by only clicking Armitage once per turn.

Definitely need to see another card that makes this more viable (personally).

I feel sad for people that don't recognize a bad card when they see one. Actually, that's not true, cause if you play this card then I'm probably crushing you. I find it quite funny how defensive some people get of bad cards. Some cards are just bad, and that's all there is to it, and this is one of those cards. I'm not close minded, but I can recognize a hopeless card when I see one. With regards to your "best played in the early game" comment, you are aware that it takes 16 turns to pay itself off at $1.5/click, correct? That's longer than the average game takes. If we're being generous in the rate of return calculation and say that a click is worth about $1.25, then it's still going to take 10 turns to pay off. I'm not going to stop you from playing this, but don't say I didn't tell you it was terrible when you find out that it is.

Another thing that I didn't mention in my original post is how Kati Jones is almost objectively better because she functions similarly but is better in almost every way. She costs a fraction the amount to set up, you can optionally activate her once per turn at any point instead of mandatory at the start, and she tends to provide a higher income (income is higher as long as you, on average, load her up at least 3 times before unloading, and is equal if you load her up on average twice each cycle). The only disadvantage is that she doesn't give you any money until you unload her, but that's pretty trivial when you compare all the benefits of Kati over Hard at Work.

Though I fully expect the kind of people I was refering to, to yet again apply their "the glass is half-empty"-kinda view on matters.

I am so surprised at your comeback trevaur.
You even supply the icing yourself by actually using my original phrasing for your own argument: that you lack imagination.
You and I might as well be speaking different languages because what I have been trying to convey has been epically misunderstood (as I suspected it would be)

I'm not going to go so far as saying this card has no place in any deck ever (niche builds, future card pool etc) but the elephant in the room here isn't Opus, it's Armitage.

The card costs one less to install, gains the same per click and isn't mandatory. It's also 0 influence in ALL factions. The only thing HaW does better than Armitage is never run out, but the extra install cost means it takes longer to see the same profit you could have got by only clicking Armitage once per turn.

Definitely need to see another card that makes this more viable (personally).

Now there at least is some constructive debate going.
And a small correction: armitage costs 4 less to install.
As you mention yourself, armitage does run out at some point. I felt it more appropiate to compare HaW with another inexhaustable card.
Running armitage and HaW in the same deck would be something I would consider more than running MO and HaW in the same deck.
So in that regard, for me, HaW does not necessarily exclude armitage.

Another thing that I didn't mention in my original post is how Kati Jones is almost objectively better because she functions similarly but is better in almost every way. She costs a fraction the amount to set up, you can optionally activate her once per turn at any point instead of mandatory at the start, and she tends to provide a higher income (income is higher as long as you, on average, load her up at least 3 times before unloading, and is equal if you load her up on average twice each cycle). The only disadvantage is that she doesn't give you any money until you unload her, but that's pretty trivial when you compare all the benefits of Kati over Hard at Work.

Though to get the maximum payout some might argue that you "have" to spend a click each turn on her anyway.
Nice to at least see you trying to supply arguments though. (and that wasn´t a bash at the argument itself)

Oops, got twisted up between costing one and costing four less you know what I mean. Anyway, it means HaW needs a full two turns more to reach the same amount of profit as Armitage (and that's assuming you don't spend the extra turns clicking foe a single credit after Armitage ran out).

There are reasons I might run HaW over Kati (perhaps I want to install something cheap each turn, or there's a server I can get into cheaply, but not free, every turn) but in those situations I'd probably still want Armitage because by the time HaW turns profit I'm already a few turns behind. It really is the initial cost to payout ratio more than anything that I have a problem with. I play Wyldside sometimes, so I know I can play with only three controllable clicks per turn, but this card just takes too long to pay out as it is.

Having said all this, I'll probably find myself testing it in a real environment eventually just to see how it works out, though I don't expect good things. I also agree that running this as well as Armitage isn't out of the question, but is questionable (does that make sense?). You're sacrificing flexibility and a not insubstantial number of credits to extend the life of your Armitage.

This might be better discussed in the forum rather than card comments if we're going to do proper analysis and comparisons

This card is awful. And by awful I mean pretty much the worst economy card in the entire game. Sure, it gets you two credits for the price of one click. The thing is, you are forced to spend this click. That's what makes this card so bad. It renders you so vulnerable to work compression it's not even funny. There are times when a click is worth way more than 2$. Or the 15$ you banked on a Kati for that matter. Sometimes you are not able to make a crucial run, because you tied yourself up with a resource that takes a ridiculous amount of time to pay for itself. Congratulations. Kati is a similar commitment, but it's still optional. That's why she's pretty much inherently better than HaW.

And sure, there is Aesop's. But seriously. You devoted yourself to such an expensive resource to pawn it away, quite possibly way before it payed out? Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

I feel sad for people who can only see limitations instead of possibilities.

And so the cycle starts again

And so the cycle starts again

I have yet to see any possibilities explained by you. And no, being kind of like MO doesn't count. MO isn't a good economy card either.

You are still missing the entire point I am trying to make.
If your premise is: winning = fun ; everything else is a waste of time, then we might be at too different perspectives

Also this is a game. Try playing with it and the combos it can provide.
Perhaps you will be surprised at what you discover along the way.
That goes for all cards oc, not just HaW.

That would be fine if the card was 'unique' like data dealer or copycat, but Hard at Work is at best "Gain money very slightly faster than normal." The card itself is not fun (timmy card), interesting (johnny card) or powerful (spike card). Fun is not the argument to make with a numbers card like this (so far).

That would be fine if the card was 'unique' like data dealer or copycat, but Hard at Work is at best "Gain money very slightly faster than normal." The card itself is not fun (timmy card), interesting (johnny card) or powerful (spike card). Fun is not the argument to make with a numbers card like this (so far).

This is exactly right. For instance, record reconstructor is (probably) a pretty bad card but it can certainly be a fun card to play around with putting that enigma back on top of the corp's R&D after you have your yog out. But HaW, as it stands now, does nothing special but get you 2$ for 1@ once per turn. It's slow, the mandatory part actually hurts you as has been brought up before, and if you're talking about the "fun" factor then I'd argue that cards that take away choice from the player are less "fun" then those that let you decide when you do what. So I agree with almost everyone here that yeah it's an awfull card.

That would be fine if the card was 'unique' like data dealer or copycat, but Hard at Work is at best "Gain money very slightly faster than normal." The card itself is not fun (timmy card), interesting (johnny card) or powerful (spike card). Fun is not the argument to make with a numbers card like this (so far).

Yes take the game seriously you guys.
Fun is obviously for children. Not for mature men playing with their cards.

Oh ****. I just realized something. Notice that the wording on both Wyldside and Hard at Work say "lose" a [Click], and not that "when your turn begins, you must SPEND a [Click]," the latter being the standard terminology for using both click actions on cards and paying the additional click necessary for double events like Hostage...

I predict that at some point in the future, we're going to see an Anarch card that says something along the lines of: "You Cannot Lose [Clicks] Through Card Effects." This, of course, won't stop you from having to spend a click as a COST of playing cards like Frame Job, or using the ability on Data Dealer, but it will push both Wyldside and Hard at Work back into the "Definitely Playable" category, as well as being a one-size-fits-all solution for cards like Hourglass and Viper.

There'll probably be some crippling downside to it (like, I don't know, the runner cannot initiate runs? Or it takes up 3 memory?), but I can't shake the feeling that somewhere down the road, they're going to do something like this.

Yes take the game seriously you guys.
Fun is obviously for children. Not for mature men playing with their cards.

Yes, children will love the fun effect of gaining two credits. My, the world just seemed more magical at that age.

Yes, children will love the fun effect of gaining two credits. My, the world just seemed more magical at that age.

Then we grew up and learned have to speak sarcasm.
An almost enchanted language that could sometimes make us sound smart, even while we still didn´t understood the core of an argument.
And the world was better for it.

Then we grew up and learned have to speak sarcasm.
An almost enchanted language that could sometimes make us sound smart, even while we still didn´t understood the core of an argument.
And the world was better for it.

*Subtly points to the poster's previous post*

*Subtly points to the poster's previous post*

This is hilarious.

Also, good observation, Tynian. It would definitely make this card playable if we had some way of preventing ourselves from losing clicks. That could become very interesting, actually.