|
Post by mikeEB on Nov 27, 2008 16:41:10 GMT -5
Every expert I've talked to has said that the permanency-blindness weave is potentially game-winning:
XSPFPSDW PSDFWFDX
but with a remove enchantment into counterspell, they can keep you from landing a permanent anything, and be in a position to remove a self-perma-charm after a few turns. What can the permanency warlock do to counter a PDWPP/WPPDW response?
The best I've been able to come up with is:
PSDWWFW WFDFPSF
Which forces through a poison (possibly backed by para) or a troll. However, it can't land a permanent disruption if they call my bluff.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Nov 27, 2008 17:07:21 GMT -5
If they are totally defensive with PD, why don't just take 2 with WFP and advance to double charm for another 5-6?
|
|
|
Post by xade on Nov 27, 2008 17:28:44 GMT -5
It used too be thought of as game winning. But the PDWP.WPP string takes a lot of the bite out of it's tail. Much better to hit them with a bolt in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Nov 27, 2008 18:38:57 GMT -5
The answer to blindness is to make it too expensive - direct damage threats or big monsters followed with Dispel is another good answer
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Nov 27, 2008 20:02:34 GMT -5
The answer to blindness is to make it too expensive - direct damage threats or big monsters followed with Dispel is another good answer That wasn't the question. I was asking what I should do if I land a blindness spell two turns after an anti-spell. I want to know how I can best take advantage of my opponent's two turns of blindness on top of my permanency threat.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Nov 29, 2008 12:05:59 GMT -5
Aha, my bad... Here's the classic (and obvious, of course) SPFPSdW xDWFFdPP Plenty of other options, though... The Blind player needs to scramble with the classic PDWPP/WPPDW defense or risk perm enchantments... My take on the anti followed with blind setup is to switch off the W and onto F for charm and amnesia the blank hand an extra turn... However, the 'correct' way to play the PDWPP/WPPDW defense is to *always target yourself* so the Charm will be wasted. So far I've followed most folk's thinking on this -- the anti+blindness casting player is actually settling into a predictable, fairly easily defended with PDWPP/WPPDW, pattern so instead of following through on the obvious, you'll want to psych out your opponent and switch to a less easily defended flow. If the PDWP/WPPDW player looks committed, you could switch to some sort of classy FoD (SPPFD/FoD is always fun and tough to defend from PDWPP/WPPDW)
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Nov 29, 2008 13:13:16 GMT -5
Ooh, DSF/FoD looks nasty: SPFPSDWPWP XDWFFDSFFF
or SPFPSDWPWP XDWFFDFFFF
have a credible permanency threat AND leave them in a bad position if they defend correctly. The following variant does the same thing but also bluffs at going for the troll: SPFPSDWPWP XDWFFDFDSF
And a Para/FoD with the other hand can also threaten blindness and/or poison, at the cost of not threatening anything on turn 2 of the permanency. SPFPSDWFF XDWFFDPWP
SPFPSDWWF XDWFFDPWP
I think I've found what I was looking for.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Nov 29, 2008 14:03:43 GMT -5
"The following variant does the same thing but also bluffs at going for the troll" No it doesn't. Opponent sees: SPFPSD???P XDWFFD???F
He sees Permanency, Maladroit and shield effects, which gives SPFPSDWP?P XDWFFD?DSF
No troll fake here.
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Nov 29, 2008 14:09:32 GMT -5
"The following variant does the same thing but also bluffs at going for the troll" No it doesn't. Opponent sees: SPFPSD???P XDWFFD???F
He sees Permanency, Maladroit and shield effects, which gives SPFPSDWP?P XDWFFD?DSF
No troll fake here. If he aims the PDWP at himself, he regains vision one turn early. The turn before the maladroit, he sees SPFPSDWPW XDWFFD??S
or SPFPSDW?W XDWFFD?PS
with no way of differentiating between the two. I was referring to the second case.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Nov 29, 2008 14:18:54 GMT -5
MikeEB Sorry, I misunderstood. But from the point of view of the defender this option: SPFPSDW?W XDWFFD?PS
is totally unlikely - it implies that attacker wasted 1 turn in LH, wasted 1 turn in RH, and abandoned Permanency - all in favor of lone PSxx attack. That would be a very strange attack, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Nov 29, 2008 14:28:59 GMT -5
MikeEB Sorry, I misunderstood. But from the point of view of the defender this option: SPFPSDW?W XDWFFD?PS
is totally unlikely - it implies that attacker wasted 1 turn in LH, wasted 1 turn in RH, and abandoned Permanency - all in favor of lone PSxx attack. That would be a very strange attack, don't you think? SPFPSDWSWD XDWFFDFPSF
It's a targeted counter to one of the standard permanency defenses, netting a troll: PDWPPX WPPWWS
They can still counter the troll by letting the permanent fear land(!) and removing it with PDWP, but that loses spectacularly to the maladroit-FoD variant.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Nov 29, 2008 15:18:37 GMT -5
But the question about blindness player's actions remains. Why in the hell would he abandon DF in favor of possible troll? He just landed blindness+perm, he can set up any attack, and suddenly he falls back casting 1 spell in 3 blindness turns just to have troll a 4 turns later? Dunno, I'd hardly buy it.
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Nov 29, 2008 15:55:56 GMT -5
BioLogIn: It's supposed to punish a counterspell on the third permanency turn. After a thorough inspection, it doesn't hold up well if they continue into a charm. Looks like I missed another variant, though: SPFPSDWFF XDWFFDFPW
Lets 'em know exactly what you're up to at turn permanency+2, but gains you 2 life.
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Dec 3, 2008 10:25:50 GMT -5
The classical continuation is:
SPFPSDWSW xDFWFDPPW
xxx-PDWPDW xxx-WPPDWP
with a 50-50 of Perm Invis and Perm Fear. Perm Fear can be removed like this, after covering Perm Invis with PDWP at the opponent:
SPFPSDWSWD xDFWFDPPWP
xxx-PDWPDWP xxx-WPPDWPW
however, this is actually all but game-losing as
SPFPSDWSWDP xDFWFDPPWPFSS
ends with the classic TaliFoD finish with the additional twist of an extra amnesia threat; perfect play against vanilla TaliFoD yields only 1 chance in 3 of escape, and that chance can be exploited for a guaranteed fireball hit. Here, the odds are even more stacked against the defender.
Therefore, with two fully aware warlocks playing and high health, the line yields a kill more than 5 times in 12 (Perm Invis is unstoppable if played competently save by a lucky storm getting through on low health). In practice, it has worked out much better than that for me by just following the Fear line - many warlocks fail to spot the Fear, and those that do often look just far enough to see the Perm Fear removal, but miss the TaliFoD.
This is a somewhat better line than just gaining two health.
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Dec 3, 2008 17:14:37 GMT -5
Is that better than a straight FoD weave, though? The Para-FoD with blindess option looks like it gives only one 50-50 against the standard defense.
|
|