Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[brokoli]

My opinion about the last 3 parts :

Underrated :
Festival - I would rank it closer to bazaar
Apprentice - Such a good card, can do a lot of different things
Stables - I also tend to think it's better than laboratory, though I'm not sure
Jester

Overrated :
Market
Bazaar
Count
Band of misfits - From my experience, it's very rare to see a bord where BoM really shines, with enough options in the $4 and $3 cards
Tactician - Still a very good card, I myself often overrate it because it's just a fun card to play, but #16 is way too high.
Soothsayer - Not sure about that card but gold gaining is not that good.
Junk Dealer - top 10 seriously ? I always thought it was better than upgrade but… not that much

[shark_bait]

Junk Dealer - top 10 seriously ? I always thought it was better than upgrade but… not that much

What makes Junk Dealer exceptional is that you are very likely to still hit $5 in the turn that you trash.  Junk Dealer can trash both Copper and Estate and also provides some cycling.

[BraveBear]

I've changed my mind and think lab is better then stables but only slightly.

Stables just gets worse and worse as the game progresses.  It also gets worse when there is trashing on the board which we all know is powerful in most games.

Lab is just more consistent always.

I feel like the more and more I play with stables I am discarding a silver just to get a hand that I needed that silver in.  Yes stables has better early cycling but its end game riskiness make laboratory just a better card on more boards.

[Awaclus]

Junk Dealer - top 10 seriously ? I always thought it was better than upgrade but… not that much

I think Upgrade is almost top 10 material too.

[HiveMindEmulator]

I've changed my mind and think lab is better then stables but only slightly.

Stables just gets worse and worse as the game progresses.  It also gets worse when there is trashing on the board which we all know is powerful in most games.

Lab is just more consistent always.

I feel like the more and more I play with stables I am discarding a silver just to get a hand that I needed that silver in.  Yes stables has better early cycling but its end game riskiness make laboratory just a better card on more boards.

Lab is consistent, sure. But it's consistently average (like I think it's barely in the top half of $5 cards). It really shines in a well-trashed deck, but there are so many ways to draw your deck if it's well-trashed. Village+Smithy, for one, does the exact same thing as Lab+Lab but at a much cheaper price point. And if your deck isn't trashed well enough to make Village+Smithy work, it's probably not trashed well enough to make Lab particularly useful either. Stables works well in situations where there are fewer good alternatives, which makes it more valuable.

[c4master]

Stables doesn't enable engines[*1] as it's no village and it doesn't have +buy or a gain-effect.

I would still buy a Stables first, when there is no strong trashing, but I probably wouldn't if there is. And I surely wouldn't buy more than two Stables if there is at least light trashing and I'm going to use that.
Stables + one silver or gold gainer is probably pretty good BM-Strategy. Lab really can't do that equally nicely. But with Steward on board, I'd always prefer Lab. Even as an opener.


-----

[*1] Defining engines as decks that either want buy more than one province or play more than one terminal each turn (in the endgame).

[BraveBear]

Lab is consistent, sure. But it's consistently average (like I think it's barely in the top half of $5 cards). It really shines in a well-trashed deck, but there are so many ways to draw your deck if it's well-trashed. Village+Smithy, for one, does the exact same thing as Lab+Lab but at a much cheaper price point. And if your deck isn't trashed well enough to make Village+Smithy work, it's probably not trashed well enough to make Lab particularly useful either. Stables works well in situations where there are fewer good alternatives, which makes it more valuable.

So are you saying that stables is just as far down as Lab?  Because even if one is better then the other it really is only slightly.

And trashing just dominates most boards.  Why would you want to rely on such a bad card as copper to keep your engine going?

[Awaclus]

So are you saying that stables is just as far down as Lab?  Because even if one is better then the other it really is only slightly.

And trashing just dominates most boards.  Why would you want to rely on such a bad card as copper to keep your engine going?

I think that Stables is significantly better than Lab, because Copper is significantly worse than a pure cantrip. It's not that you are relying on Coppers to keep your engine going, it's that you are keeping your engine going despite your Coppers. Trashing everything is very slow quite often, sometimes you want to do it anyway, but with Stables, you don't have to.

[BraveBear]

Drawing most of your deck is much better with labs.  With stables you are going to run into times where you cant cause a reshuffle because you have 100 coppers in your discard. 

I just think they are a lot closer just like the rankings suggest.  They might both be a little overrated but there is no way they should be more then 5 ranks different.

[KingZog3]

Drawing most of your deck is much better with labs.  With stables you are going to run into times where you cant cause a reshuffle because you have 100 coppers in your discard. 

I just think they are a lot closer just like the rankings suggest.  They might both be a little overrated but there is no way they should be more then 5 ranks different.

I disagree. I'm with Awaclus here. Stables can be used in BM, but also as a sort of Warehouse+Lab drawer. It's got the same sifting as Lab (3cards) but increases your hand size. And honestly, it's very often worth it to discard Silvers to play them.

[markusin]

Drawing most of your deck is much better with labs.  With stables you are going to run into times where you cant cause a reshuffle because you have 100 coppers in your discard. 

I just think they are a lot closer just like the rankings suggest.  They might both be a little overrated but there is no way they should be more then 5 ranks different.

I disagree. I'm with Awaclus here. Stables can be used in BM, but also as a sort of Warehouse+Lab drawer. It's got the same sifting as Lab (3cards) but increases your hand size. And honestly, it's very often worth it to discard Silvers to play them.

And with gold gainers like Hoard, I wouldn't be afraid to discard the Gold to, say, find my Goons.

Those that say Lab > Stables are arguing that the end game weakening of Stables is not worth it's strength in the early-mid game. I think that the early-mid game is crutial and is where you really get ahead of your opponent with better play. It's probably okay if your Stables are stalling when you're already 3 Provinces ahead. The cycling from Stables can give you such an edge depending on how strong the rest of the kingdom is.

[HiveMindEmulator]

Stables doesn't enable engines[*1] as it's no village and it doesn't have +buy or a gain-effect.

Chapel isn't a village and doesn't have +buy or gain. Would you say Chapel doesn't enable engines?


And about Lab being better late game:
Late game Lab is better than Witch too, but it would be foolish to say that makes Lab better than Witch. The early game is the most important part of the game.

[BraveBear]

And about Lab being better late game:
Late game Lab is better than Witch too, but it would be foolish to say that makes Lab better than Witch. The early game is the most important part of the game.

I'm saying that the added cycling of stables in the beginning of the game doesn't make up for that fact you are going to get some stall turns later on.  Where lab is consistent through the game.  With light trashing is going to accelerate you towards your engine faster then spinning your wheels with stables.

Yeah witch is bad late but the power of witch in the beginning of the game isn't even comparable to stables early "power"

[BraveBear]

Late game Lab is better than Witch too

I am comparing cards that are extremely similar. 

"early game Stables is better then Kings Court too but it would be foolish to say Stables is better then Kings Court"

[markusin]

Late game Lab is better than Witch too

I am comparing cards that are extremely similar. 

"early game Stables is better then Kings Court too but it would be foolish to say Stables is better then Kings Court"

You rarely even get KC early game though, and it rocks once you get even a semi-good action density.

The community ranked Cartographer pretty low too, so I guess the trend has shifted a bit.

[Awaclus]

I'm saying that the added cycling of stables in the beginning of the game doesn't make up for that fact you are going to get some stall turns later on

I frequently buy Stables when it's on the board, and I think I've had a total of one stall turn involving Stables this year. Said stall turn also did involve King's Court.

[eHalcyon]

This is another case of consistency vs. potential.  Lab is more consistently useful while Stables has higher highs and lower lows. 

I'm with those who favour Stables though.  I find lows to be pretty rare with Stables.  On engine-friendly boards with some trashing, there are usually better things to buy than either Lab or Stables.  If there is less engine support or no trashing, Stables is easily better than Lab.

[soulnet]

I think with good trashing (let's say, Steward), Stables may very well be better than Lab as your first $5 (assuming there is nothing even better than both). Even if you end up trashing that Stables, the extra cycling let you trash faster, and that's an extremely important plus. I think by the time Stables is an obstacle instead of an asset, you already got enough benefit from it.

[Awaclus]

I think with good trashing (let's say, Steward), Stables may very well be better than Lab as your first $5 (assuming there is nothing even better than both). Even if you end up trashing that Stables, the extra cycling let you trash faster, and that's an extremely important plus. I think by the time Stables is an obstacle instead of an asset, you already got enough benefit from it.

Plus, Stables helps you connect the trasher with your Estates, and trashing the Estates helps your Stables.

[silverspawn]

i get stalled with stables quite often, but i think that's just because im bad with them. it's one of my worst cards

it's strong though

[c4master]

Late game Lab is better than Witch too

I am comparing cards that are extremely similar. 

"early game Stables is better then Kings Court too but it would be foolish to say Stables is better then Kings Court"

You rarely even get KC early game though, and it rocks once you get even a semi-good action density.

The community ranked Cartographer pretty low too, so I guess the trend has shifted a bit.

Interesting, though.
Why wouldn't I want a Cartographer as my first $5 buy? Because it doesn't do anything for the turn I'm playing it. It's pretty good afterwards, but only a Cantrip (which doesn't help my actual turn) the turn I play it. Still, I wonder if there is something that Stables enable which Cartographer can't enable just as good. That said, I think, Cartographer could be even a stronger opener than Stables! It nets you a 4-Card-hand +0.7 Coins and you may discard up to 4 Cards from your draw pile. Stables ditching Copper nets you roughly a 4-Card-hand with +1.1 = 2.1 - 1.0 Coins and let's you draw 3 Cards from your draw pile. Maybe we're underrating Cartographer?

I also want to add, that, if the cycling from Stables ist so good, then why is Cellar so low?
I know. Stables increase hand size by one and Cellar decreases it by one, but Cellar could be better than Stables (high potential). Actually, I believe they work pretty well together.

Of course, it all depends on the board. If there is Jack, Stables will be amazing. If there is no Jack, but Moneylender, Stables are not gonna be as good. (I wonder if Stables + 1 Jack ist better than Double-Jack on a BM-board --> I've proved this on the simulator. Stables+Jack is slightly better. Here is what I've done:
# Buys one Jack of All Trades and some Stables otherwise plays a version of Big Money.
#
# This has no Colony rules, because it would be a terrible strategy in
# Colony games.
{
  name: 'StablesJack'
  author: 'c4'
  requires: ["Jack of All Trades", "Stables"]
  gainPriority: (state, my) -> [
    "Province" if my.getTotalMoney() > 15
    "Duchy" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= 5
    "Estate" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= 2
    "Jack of All Trades" if my.countInDeck("Jack of All Trades") < 1
    "Gold"
    "Stables" if my.countInDeck("Stables") < 1 or my.countInDeck("Gold") > 2
    "Silver"
  ]
}
I expected this to be far better than doubleJack, but it's only slightly better. I've also tried to deny duchies because Stables has more longevity, but this was as terrible as losing 95% of all the games
)

--------

Discussing these Cards, I learn a lot about them. So even if I'm wrong like 60% of all the time, I'm still fine discussing it and being corrected.

[Awaclus]

Late game Lab is better than Witch too

I am comparing cards that are extremely similar. 

"early game Stables is better then Kings Court too but it would be foolish to say Stables is better then Kings Court"

You rarely even get KC early game though, and it rocks once you get even a semi-good action density.

The community ranked Cartographer pretty low too, so I guess the trend has shifted a bit.

Interesting, though.
Why wouldn't I want a Cartographer as my first $5 buy? Because it doesn't do anything for the turn I'm playing it. It's pretty good afterwards, but only a Cantrip (which doesn't help my actual turn) the turn I play it. Still, I wonder if there is something that Stables enable which Cartographer can't enable just as good. That said, I think, Cartographer could be even a stronger opener than Stables! It nets you a 4-Card-hand +0.7 Coins and you may discard up to 4 Cards from your draw pile. Stables ditching Copper nets you roughly a 4-Card-hand with +1.1 = 2.1 - 1.0 Coins and let's you draw 3 Cards from your draw pile. Maybe we're underrating Cartographer?

We might be underrating Cartographer, but just a little. The main reasons why Stables is better are that it clears junk from your hand, so it always affects your current turn while Cartographer clears junk from your deck, so it affects your current turn only if you can draw more cards after the Cartographer, and most importantly that Stables increases your hand size while Cartographer doesn't: you still have to buy a Village and a Smithy in addition to two Cartographers to reach the same drawing power that two Stables have without any extra cards.

I also want to add, that, if the cycling from Stables ist so good, then why is Cellar so low?
I know. Stables increase hand size by one and Cellar decreases it by one, but Cellar could be better than Stables (high potential). Actually, I believe they work pretty well together.

Yeah, Cellar works pretty well with any card that increases your hand size. However, it's not as good with Stables as it is with some other cards (especially Advisor); since Stables is already taking care of some of the bad cards in your hand, there will be less bad cards for Cellar to discard.

[soulnet]

# Buys one Jack of All Trades and some Stables otherwise plays a version of Big Money.
#
# This has no Colony rules, because it would be a terrible strategy in
# Colony games.
{
  name: 'StablesJack'
  author: 'c4'
  requires: ["Jack of All Trades", "Stables"]
  gainPriority: (state, my) -> [
    "Province" if my.getTotalMoney() > 15
    "Duchy" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= 5
    "Estate" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= 2
    "Jack of All Trades" if my.countInDeck("Jack of All Trades") < 1
    "Gold"
    "Stables" if my.countInDeck("Stables") < 1 or my.countInDeck("Gold") > 2
    "Silver"
  ]
}

Why would you buy Silver ahead of Stables in ANY scenario?

Also, if you want Stables to work, you really need some careful playing rules, to avoid unwanted reshuffles and maybe choose when to discard Silver to Stables depending on how much money you currently have and what is left in your deck. I would expect a human to play way better than this algorithm, but way worse than a much more convoluted algorithm.

[c4master]

It has just been try & error. Buying too many Stables seems to make you fall behind on money too much. Especially buying Stables over gold is a mistake, I've been doing. But probably, the simulator just doesn't play Stables properly and I don't know how I can change its behavior about Stables.
Anyways, by now, I wouldn't overestimate the meaning of all this BigMoney simulation any more. It shows a bit about acceleration and longevity but its mostly irrelevant on EGC even using PPR.

I'm pretty sure, one could come up with some nice Engine-BM-Hybrid-stuff using the simulators. Still, you need to define HOW it should be played. In my tries, I've seen the simulator discarding Monument when it was my only terminal in the deck. It doesn't seem to realize that playing Monuments could be the whole point of a deck - and not gaining cards...

Probably this discussion is a little off-topic now. I like Stables where it is and many others like it a bit higher, so that's basically it.

[Qvist]

Part 6

Regarding Rebuild:

I'm interested to hear your opinions on this card. I don't want to say to much personal opinions in this series, but I expect it to be much higher the next time because it's a card which seems not so strong at first glance, but honestly is.

But, I still had it way too low. Big shout-out for Wandering Winder and Beyond Awesome who had it highest at #5 last year.