Print

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

[rrenaud]

I recently played a game with both of these.  There was a Salvager, but no other trashing.  I mostly picked Stables over Labs, figuring that (hopefully) with estates gone, coppers are less good than the average card in my deck.

What factors influence your choices for Stables vs Lab?  Do you have a general preference between the cards?  Surely I'd take Hunting Party over either of them most of the time, but Stables vs Lab is a lot more subtle.  Obviously something like Moneylender that trashes coppers makes Stables less useful, and heavy trashing in general might lean away from Stables.  But things like Salvager or JoaT push the decision the other way, where you trash estates but not coppers (much) and hence coppers are still plentiful and also weak.

[GendoIkari]

I recently played a game with both of these.  There was a Salvager, but no other trashing.  I mostly picked Stables over Labs, figuring that (hopefully) with estates gone, coppers are less good than the average card in my deck.

What factors influence your choices for Stables vs Lab?  Do you have a general preference between the cards?  Surely I'd take Hunting Party over either of them most of the time, but Stables vs Lab is a lot more subtle.  Obviously something like Moneylender that trashes coppers makes Stables less useful, and heavy trashing in general might lean away from Stables.  But things like Salvager or JoaT push the decision the other way, where you trash estates but not coppers (much) and hence coppers are still plentiful and also weak.

I'm no expert, but I would probably avoid buying more than 2 Stables in general, while buying as many Labs as possible. Basically, a hand full of Stables is as good as a hand full of Curses. Even 1 turn of drawing a Stable without any treasure could be a huge hinderance.

Yesterday I used a Stables and discarded a Gold, btw. I had lots of good actions I wanted.

[LastFootnote]

Assuming no good Copper trashing, Stables will cycle your deck faster than Lab. If I have a powerful terminal (like an Attack) that I want to play as often as possible, I think I'd take Stables more often.

However, Stables does a pretty poor job actually dealing with said attacks. Cursing attacks make it less likely that I'll get my Stables and Copper together. Discard attacks will often make me choose between keeping my good Treasures and terminals and keeping my Stables and a Treasure.

[Elyv]

I suspect you want a mix; I'd probably grab 2-3 Stables and then start buying labs.

Maybe once you get like 4 labs(assuming you want more lab effects), grab another stable? I'm not really sure.

[quasi]

If there's heavy trashing of coppers, you probably want at most one stable for the early mid game, and then go labs.  However, even discarding a silver to stables is sometimes preferable to playing a lab.  Having labs make your stables more robust to low treasure density.

Obviously though stables is better without copper trashing.  I'd buy ~4 stables first, then I guess I'd switch to labs, but the game probably won't last that long.  I think you'd be ok buying only stables.  If all your coppers are around, it's relatively rare to never get one. 

In cursing games, the calculus changes a little bit.  You still probably want stables first, but I think you could run into trouble if you went all out on the stables.  I'd probably get 2-3 then start alternating between lab and stables. 

With discard attacks, again go a little less heavy on the stables, but still probably get at least 2 or 3 then alternate. 

Overall, without trashing stables is significantly stronger than lab.

[brokoli]

I think they are both good. Stables cycle your deck faster, but it's risky (if you don't have copper, or if you have a lot of victory cards).

I'm no expert, but I would probably avoid buying more than 2 Stables in general, while buying as many Labs as possible. Basically, a hand full of Stables is as good as a hand full of Curses. Even 1 turn of drawing a Stable without any treasure could be a huge hinderance.

I disagree. Almost always, you have a copper (or at worst, a silver) in your hand. The stables draws 3 cards, so you'll easily have another copper to discard with stables. And a stables rush is as effective as a laboratory rush. So, I would take often more than 3 stables.

[Geronimoo]

No Copper trashing, no Cursing attacks, something to dig for (Baron, Salvager, other combos) -> Stables

All other cases -> Laboratory (also don't buy one Stables then switch, just go straight Lab)

[DG]

My idea of stables seems quite different. Stables seem good when coppers are the worst card in your deck. As soon as your deck fills with green cards and curses you are using two good cards (stables and copper) to draw 3 cards of indeterminate quality, which might not be a great return. If you've salvaged out your estates then the stables will work nicely to discard copper in return for better treasures and actions. In that respect a series of stables can provide the best aspects of labs and hunting parties at the same time.

[popsofctown]

Theoretically, if your deck prefers Stables over lab, the average card is better than copper, so if you've no other choice you should pitch a gold to stables.

Yes?

[theory]

Only if the average card is better than Copper after taking into account discarding the Gold(s).

[tlloyd]

Perhaps this is inherent in the idea that Stables cycles your deck more than Lab, which has been pointed out already, but I think it is worth pointing out that Stables, when you play it, is more likely to find another Stables than Lab is to find another Lab. I commented in a different thread that Inn and Stash in different ways create the same benefit to an engine--namely that they concentrate your action cards at the top of your deck (assuming you bottom-deck the stashes) which makes it easier to draw your whole deck. Stables has that same characteristic to a small extent. By discarding a treasure and drawing an extra card (relative to Lab), you are in some sense bottom-decking treasure cards. This makes you more likely to pull additional Stables (and other action cards) and thus more likely to draw your whole deck (including the discarded treasures, in which case discarding that gold was only a small and temporary sacrifice).

[Davio]

I always find it hard to judge when to start greening, whether going Lab or Stables and what to do with $6.

[LastFootnote]

Perhaps this is inherent in the idea that Stables cycles your deck more than Lab, which has been pointed out already, but I think it is worth pointing out that Stables, when you play it, is more likely to find another Stables than Lab is to find another Lab. I commented in a different thread that Inn and Stash in different ways create the same benefit to an engine--namely that they concentrate your action cards at the top of your deck (assuming you bottom-deck the stashes) which makes it easier to draw your whole deck. Stables has that same characteristic to a small extent. By discarding a treasure and drawing an extra card (relative to Lab), you are in some sense bottom-decking treasure cards. This makes you more likely to pull additional Stables (and other action cards) and thus more likely to draw your whole deck (including the discarded treasures, in which case discarding that gold was only a small and temporary sacrifice).

Huh. I never considered bottom-decking Stashes before. It seems like a useful strategy in an engine game. The question is, is it ever worth using a buy on Stash when many of your engine cards will probably also cost $5 and you'll likely be hitting $6 for Gold quite often?

[Lekkit]

If you manage to get 4 stashes, that's all the treasure you need, and with an engine that won't have to worry about drawing your 3 golds, I'd say it may be worth it.