Turing is an interesting piece of ice. It's sort of a Bioroid, but not completely. It's AI hate, but they can still make it through by clicking without punishment (similar to Wraparound just being really expensive.) It has an end the run subroutine that's technically not "End the run." (Take that, Endless Hunger!) It has variable strength, depending on placement.

The obvious move is to put it on a remote, where it's potentially very taxing, at 5 strength or 3 to get through. Combined with any Bioroid (or stacked with itself) they have to break something.

However, the (currently) most popular AI breakers are Faust, Eater, and Atman, with Brahman potentially joining the club (plus occasionally Knight). Faust/Eater/Knight decks are likely running D4v1d/Parasite, leaving it vulnerable to one or the other, depending on placement. Atman is rarely used at 5 or 2, and certainly not exclusively, while Shaper specializes in Code Gate breaking. Brahman has yet to be definitively proven, but likely packs Cyber-Cypher and Chameleon. Even Apex: Invasive Predator can get around it by using Prey, clicking through, then trashing it.

So no matter what, Turing isn't there to stop the runner. It's there to tax the runner, to slow them down. The upside is that while it seems designed solely to hurt AI, it actually has a decent cost/effectiveness ratio. Viktor 2.0 costs 1 more, and has 1 more subroutine, but costs 1 fewer click to click through. Enigma saves 1, has 1 more subroutine, but either ties in strength or is dwarfed at 2 vs. 5. This is why it's included. It's a code gate that's strong vs AI, and that's useful in other matchups, whereas Swordsman is a pathetic 1 net damage, 2 strength sentry, and Wraparound withers upon sight of a fracter. It costs the classic ZU.13 Key Master 5 to get through on a remote, which is non-negligible. And all this in a relative dearth of midrange HB code gates.

Sure, it's not reliable for keeping the runner out. But if you're either playing a no-advance strategy (HB has 2 effective 3/2 agendas and plenty of assets and upgrades to bluff with), or stacking the server with Ash 2X3ZB9CY/Caprice Nisei, spending an entire turn on a single run is not feasible for long.

It's difficult to justify the splash out of faction compared to Swordsman and Wraparound, at 3 influence, which is a shame.

As the flavor text mentions, Turing is a reference to the "Turing test," posthumously named after the pioneering computer scientist Alan Turing who proposed it, which is a test to differentiate between Human and Artificial Intelligence. Hence, AI breakers "fail" the "Turing" test.

Turing is a necessary addition to the game, completing the trinity of AI-hate cards along with Wraparound and Swordsman. When facing lots of Turings in their meta, anyone running Darwin, Crypsis, Overmind or Eater only decks will either have to bite the bullet and switch to a full breaker suite, or else find ways to capitalise on making runs that use up their whole turn.

Aside from that rather hefty boon, I see a number of distinct problems with Turing that make it my least favourite of the new "technological revolutionary" ice that were released with Breaker Bay.

1. If it's not protecting a remote server, Turing is weak to Parasite. Unlike Swordsman, where you get the huge advantage of knocking out a key program mid run, functionally Turing is just going to act as a hard stop for AI-only decks. Not coincidentally, these decks are almost universally Anarch decks, which also pack Parasite. Wraparound is naturally resistant to Parasite absent a fracter, but Turing on a central is 2 turns away from death (less if they're using Datasuckers). If you're trying to find ways to slow down Eater+Keyhole, Eater+Account Siphon or Eater+Vamp, this is not the card for you.

2. Alright, so it needs to go on a remote server. Except outside of Replicating Perfection, we know full well that cards like Eli 1.0 are unreliable as the runner can always just click through if they really want to get into the server. Turing faces a similar problem. Absent some additional tricks like Ash 2X3ZB9CY or Caprice Nisei, Turing is merely a nice taxing card, but tax isn't good enough if your intention is to score all your agendas via a well-defended remote.

3. Alright, so let's put in Ash 2X3ZB9CY and Caprice Nisei, since they're good cards anyway! What's Turing doing for us then? Well, not a bunch, to be honest. 4 for 5 strength and 1 subroutine is a middling cost-to-tax ratio, and is going to be eaten alive by some of the more common code gate breakers like Cyber-Cypher. It compares unfavourably to a lot of alternative HB code gates like NEXT Bronze, which is cheaper and has a higher tax-ceiling in combination with its siblings, and Viktor 2.0 which at least has a couple of subroutines to add to the tax. Mostly, you'll be spending 4 credits to tax the runner by about 4 credits per run. If you're looking to set up a well-defended remote that depends on tax to create scoring windows, you can probably afford the much more effective Tollbooth.

4. At 3 influence, it's unlikely to be imported to any other decks, which means Jinteki, Weyland and NBN will have to make do with Wraparound and Swordsman to deal with AI-heavy metas.

So yeah, if you're playing HB and can't afford the influence on Wraparound or Swordsman this might be a useful card for you. Otherwise, I feel HB is a little spoiled for choice in terms of decent, mid-range code gates.