WWS vs. WPP

[awall]

So, you're standing in the middle of the circle desperately fending off your opponent's dastardly weaves. You wave one of your hands and then realize that, for whatever reason, you're going to need a counterspell two turns from now (or at least the threat of one). Maybe your W finished a summon while your opponent was at PS, maybe you just got charmed and your opponent is at DFF, whatever. The question up for discussion right now is: Do you gesture W or P next turn?

There are a few situations where the answer is obvious. You gesture WW if you need the P on your other hand (although I can't think of too many situations where this would occur) or if your opponent threatens Maladroitness; you do WP if you need the shield or if your opponent threatens any of the other 3-gesture disruptions. Beyond this, when do you go for one counterspell over the other?

My answers:

When one or both players are low on health, I'll almost always go for WP over WW. It protects me from incidental missiles and can be dummied very nicely into WPFD. If I'm worried about my opponent going Invisible (i.e. he's at PS/xP or something) I'll often do WPP so that I can follow him if he goes for it. I also tend to prefer WWPP over WWWS, but I'm afraid that I sometimes do this just so that the first W isn't wasted, even when WWWS would have been a better play.

Outside of the above cases, I'm starting to get more and more partial to WWS. The main problem is that WPP is slow! Unless I follow it up with Invis (which I've found to rarely be a good play), it's going to be three turns before the hand that countered will be doing anything else. Three whole turns! If my opponent dummies his spell, I'm out quite a bit of initiative here. Especially when I have an Ogre to protect, PP is dangerous if my opponent gestures PS. WS, on the other hand, lets me continue to WSWD and use Fear to keep the Ogre from getting Charmed without having to drop whatever my other hand was doing for the sake of Ogre defense.

The other reason I prefer WW is because it doesn't commit me as badly as WP. If my opponent has two spells coming and I time a WP to counter the first, he can abort it, confident in the knowledge that his second one will succeed. If I have WW instead, my opponent aborting his first spell carries the risk that I'll dummy the first counter and continue WWWS or WWPP to foil his second one. Alternatively, if the first spell is something like a Goblin I often do WWP instead and let him summon, using my two turns of Protection to go for WWPSDx.

What are other people's tendencies? Counterspell is one of the most frequently cast spells in the game, and using the right one in the right situation seems critical to preserving your spellflow while on the defensive.

[ExDeath]

I would say I probably use WPP more, but usually that's just to save myself from missile damage as you said, or on the tail end of a protection. If I know I need to counter something I'll almost always go WW...other than spellflow, it also makes your opponent less likely to dummy into something else, as they're too afraid you'll dummy too and then they waste tempo. How many times do you really go WP and then not counter? Sure, you can go cause heavy, but I like WWSFW or WWSWD way better than WPFDX. If they do dummy their spell, they're dummying to something more powerful than cause heavy, so at least with the S I get a goblin or fear out of the deal, which sometimes can counter a charm (i.e. DPSD vs my WWSW).

[Slartucker]

exdeath said:

How many times do you really go WP and then not counter? Sure, you can go cause heavy, but I like WWSFW or WWSWD way better than WPFDX.

What about WPS? WPS and WPPS are, in my mind, the main reason to choose WPP over WWS. PSxx may be slow, but it's also strong, and it absorbs disruptions well.

I'd say I actually dummy WPP counters more than WWS counters because of this: WPS gets me started on a useful attack, whereas there is no offensive possibility whatsoever out of WW. Playing the counterspell guessing game with a string of W's is a last resort.

I do like WWSFW, but it's quite situational, and often the goblin is easily disarmed. Same thing with WWSWD; Fear rarely destroys anybody's spellflow.

[Rycchus]

How is WWSWD faster than WPSDx, awall?
WW doesn't commit you to a counter if you think your oppinent will dummy and you'll need the counter the turn after or something. However WP is much more offensive and doesn't leave you flapping around with pansy w's; in this respect WWS is much slower. Sure you can dummy into another counter, but you can't do anything more fearful for a while.

Even should you cast your counter WPPSxx can well be worth the extra turn over WWSWD.

WWS has a slightly better advantage in the endgame if you're over six health and your oppenent's five or less because you can continue to WSSc.

[Slartucker]

I agree with Rycchus except for the last comment, which is hogwash. Indeed WWSSc can be useful in the endgame and it's important to keep in mind, but it certainly doesn't make WWS "better" -- the endgame, after all, is the time when WP is the king of spellflow due to having both WPP and WPFD as departure options.

[Rycchus]

Okay, the "better" bit was badly phrased. WP is of course much stronger in the endgame. I was just trying to point out an advantage that WWS has that WPP doesn't.

[awall]

rycchus said:

How is WWSWD faster than WPSDx, awall?

It's not faster than WPSDx, but it is faster than WPPSDx. You can't always dummy the counter.

I agree than WP is much more offensive than WW, and likewise PP is more offensive than WS. However, there are times when you NEED to have a disruption two turns after the counter, such as the canonical example of your opponent having PS against your Ogre. If you don't have anything on your other hand (i.e. you just got Charmed, for example), WPP will cause you to lose the Ogre, while WWS will give you a chance to keep it.

WSSc works once in a blue moon, but it tends to kill you as often as not.

[calicojack]

WPP owns WWS. The reasons are as follows:

1. WPP is immune to both amnesia and paralysis and fear, whereas WWS is only immune to maladroit.

2.The shield is important.

3. You can shadowcast (usually to charm) with WPP. (Shadowcasting to cause wounds is almost strictly better with WP (WPFD vs WFP). You could shadow to WWFP with WWS but who cares about that? The only serious shadowcasting that WWS offers is WWPP - a delay of counterspell. But that's a vote for WPP as much as it is for WWS.

In practice your choice is usually made for you. In the few circumstances where you need a counterspell but you can choose which one to use, and there are really no factors to influence you whatsoever, then go with WP, every time.