|
Post by BioLogIn on Dec 15, 2009 16:14:57 GMT -5
Background: D/P opening has been pretty much dominating hellplane landscape for quite a while. There was Slartucker's signature D/W mastered by a few. There were para-bolstered F/P and F/S, latter proved to be fairly successful by trial, but never being backed up theoretically. And there was a romantically drunk warlock who tried to dismantle D/P with the powers of S/P (and wipe the sake-wet floor with that mantle).This time we would like to present yet another attempt to find an opening that can successfully compete with D/P. Here comes SW/PW vs D/P analysisThe thing is quite big (about 30k without markup), so take a deep breath before diving in... or just fast forward to summary section in the very end =) Most of this work is done by Salvor. Most of ideas there were his and most of analysis was done by him or by us together, but rarely by me alone. We would like to thank Slartucker and Taliesin for reviewing this thing and providing valuable comments and suggestions. In fact, without Tali's suggestions this analysis was deemed to be long incomplete, so our very special thanks go to him again =) We would welcome any feedback, suggestions and corrections. Enjoy =)
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Dec 16, 2009 2:39:34 GMT -5
You're missing an analysis of the perm/blind case: DSP PSD
SWW PWP
It's risky for the D/P player, since it's vulnerable to Fear, but grabs the initiative quickly if the S/W player uses the recommended anti-DSF line.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Dec 16, 2009 4:52:35 GMT -5
bloody hell guys, that's freaking awesome! Now, in one word, if SP better than DP?
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Dec 16, 2009 7:04:06 GMT -5
MikeEBInteresting, gonna look into it... XadeNo But not worse either.
|
|
|
Post by salvor on Dec 16, 2009 8:12:10 GMT -5
2 BioLogInActually we've analysed that line, so I'll just repost our results it(I've forget to add it, only wrote that it isn't disadvantagous when compared SWW/PWP variant to a SW/WF play). 2 MikeEB and all Actually it isn't worth to play DSP/PSD there. Firstly we reccomend not SWW/PWP-play but SWW/PWP play combined with SWD/PWW. If we throw fear, result will be (don't want to write total analysis, just wrote good S/P line and wrote normal D/Ps anwer on it DSPWPP/PSDPF was better,but if S/P called that risk it is also very bad) DSPWWW PSDPPP
SWDPPP PWWFFF
It is horrible position(I mean completely horrible). If S/P plays PSPSP/FFFF and paralyse RH of D/P D/P is forced to throw W EVERY time (otherwise he get para+ogre or antispell+troll) and after PW/FF unloop he forces 1 50/50 fireball-built in FoD. Horrible! Even worse in case S/P played SWD/PWP(we didn't reccomend it, maybe it is too bad vs DSF/PSD, actually even there it isn't disastrous) DSP PSD
SWW PWP
Here each have lots of options: DSPF/PSDF \/ DSPS/PSDF \/ DSPS/PSDP \/ DSPF/PSDP vs SWWW/PWPP \/ SWWS/PWPW \/ SWWP/PWPW Now if both players use there "safe" lines we have: DSPFP PSDFW
SWWWSP(F \/ S) PWPPSDF
SPF-if D/P cancelled blindness, SPS-if D/P played DSPFPS/PSDFWF And D/P can't use their permanency and S/P starts his own combo. So double-safe case favors S/P. The only variant which "punish" SWWW/PWPP is PSDP/DSPS-variant(result is classical DP/PS vs WW/PP-matchup). Other are also worse than SWWW/PWPP. Main problem with DSPS/PSDP play is that in SWWP/PWPW case S/P gets haste, which can't be disrupted effectively. So if D/P plays DSP/PSD and S/P plays SWW/PWP D/P advantage is less(to be correct "less or equal") than DP/PS vs PP/WW, and if S/P plays SWD/PWW his advantage is much bigger than PP/WW-advantage. PS I tend to compare positions with the "typical" positions like DP/PS vs PP/WW, FF/SP vs DP/PS etc. PPS And to tell more about perma-blind combo. It isn't as powerful as it is told to be. Just best defence isn't PDWP/WPP-defence. You should use either FFF/WPP or FFFF/PDWP or FFFF/PSDD To consider: SPFPS XDFWF
XXXX-F XXXX-P
If first player goes to permanecy and F/P continue FFF(himself)/PDWP then blinder can't do anything(even self-something or invis-fear fork). On the other hand first player could go to troll which is very bad in FF/PS case, but troll causes 3 damage points in PDWP case(before he will be removed). FF/PS is a bit bad vs permanency,but not as bad as WPP/PDWP-defence. FF/WP is also useful and don't have mindgames aroud troll(but is is weaker than FF/PD in permanency case) So, totally this line is useful,but not so hard to defence. Maybe bolt is better there, don't know(I prefer to go to DFF instead of DFW because of reasons I've written above).
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Dec 16, 2009 12:50:56 GMT -5
Dammit, you theoreticians are harshing my "play it as it comes at me" buzz!
|
|
|
Post by xade on Dec 16, 2009 18:07:34 GMT -5
S/P paint my fence!
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Dec 17, 2009 0:10:49 GMT -5
That is some mighty analysis gentlemen. I applaud. Now that i know all of your secrets the world will be mine.
Great compiling and editing. I love the quotes thrown in between the code. All you need is a few Dubber and Xade wisecracks to make it a masterpiece.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Dec 17, 2009 23:08:14 GMT -5
Don't thank me -- I never had time to properly read the thing and Taliesin deserves all the credit for feedback. I believe my one comment was "HEADACHE" :-)
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Dec 18, 2009 15:28:30 GMT -5
If first player goes to permanecy and F/P continue FFF(himself)/PDWP then blinder can't do anything(even self-something or invis-fear fork). Not sure this is right. FPSDWFF FWFDWWS
x-FFFFF x-PDWPP
PDWPP is necessary to stop DSWD. (There is also of course Perm Protection to consider, but defending the DSWD by self-paralysing will leave a very unpleasant position against Perm Blindness. Perm Protection doesn't lead to a great position either). Perm Protection:
FPSDWWPP FWFDFFFF
x-FFFFFF x-PDWPPx Next turn, the antispelled player faces both Perm Para and Perm Blind. x-FFFFFFC x-PDWPPDW Self-paralysis covers both - if the opponent's para hits, then PDDDD is I think unwinnable. However, from PDWPing the DWFFd the position is still bad; DFF/DSP among other weaves is significantly threatening. Whether it's better to gamble on an earlier turn and risk losing outright is an open question... However, this is still arguably better than PDWP/WPP in terms of negative effects. On the other hand first player could go to troll which is very bad in FF/PS case, but troll causes 3 damage points in PDWP case(before he will be removed). Remove Enchantment does not kill a monster before it attacks. You take six, or get paralysed to a clap. FPSFWx FWFFFF
x-FFFF x-PDWP FF/PS is a bit bad vs permanency,but not as bad as WPP/PDWP-defence. How? It's a guaranteed Perm Invis. You can clap on the turn after you Amnesia them to Dispel it, but they can in theory get a Banked Antispell (no, Dispelling the turn they bank will not shift it). Amnesia at self and Para at them is of course worse, and no self-protection leaves you open to Perm SWD. FWFDPPWSSPFP FPSDWDWSSSP
x-FFFFFFC x-PSDDPPC I think it's got almost exactly the same problems as PDWP/WPP. It's marginally better perhaps, but still miserable. FF/WP is also useful and don't have mindgames aroud troll(but is is weaker than FF/PD in permanency case) However, as the Antispell player can go to Permanency after seeing F/W, this isn't helpful.
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Dec 18, 2009 15:34:54 GMT -5
It should also be mentioned that FF/PS isn't great against a troll, either; if the Antispell player elects to continue into a para chain, they can self-para on the troll turn and guard the troll the turn after.
|
|
|
Post by salvor on Dec 18, 2009 16:55:02 GMT -5
Completely forgot abot a possibility of self-conterspelling,my bad.
And totally agree with the rest of your analysis. Don't know, How didn't I see the para-faked blindness which defends troll of being paralysed and PDWP'ed.
Yeah, now I like that SPFPS/XDFWF line =) Thanks,Tali!
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Dec 19, 2009 0:36:55 GMT -5
Now if both players use there "safe" lines we have: DSPFP PSDFW
SWWWSP(F \/ S) PWPPSDF Also, why is D/P playing DFW here at all if the antispell is not guaranteed? Standard here would be PSDFF, with para/lightning bolt threats. DFW is valid at times if you're facing an incoming attack but here S/P is entirely on the defensive, having countered twice, and should be attacked further. DSPFP PSDFF Going for the Lightning Bolt is foolhardy here as it gives up control: DSPFPSD? PSDFFDD?
SWWWSPFP PWPPSDFW and D/P gets an advantage of five health only to go into the SPFP/xDFW minefield himself. Continuing with paralysis is much nastier. If S/P attempts WSP/PSD: DSPFPSF PSDFFFF
SWWWSP? PWPPSDD and Antispell cannot provide enough compensation for the troll. PSD is not much cop either: DSPFPSFWPPW PSDFFFFFFFF
SWWWSPSDDP PWPPSDDPPS and D/P will paralyse the right hand, forcing S/P to take damage. The game is effectively over. Forced, I think, is WSW/PSD: DSPFPS PSDFFF
SWWWSW PWPPSD From here, S/P has two lines: WPP and WWS. (Not countering the troll is not really an option - fear allows them to play troll or Permanency all too happily. Here's the Permanency.). DSPFPSDW PSDFFFDP
SWWWSWD PWPPSDD (and defending Perm Protection and Perm Charm on both sides is left as an exercise for the reader). SWP: DSPFPSFW PSDFFFPS
SWWWSWPP PWPPSDD? The counter at least weakens the troll threat. However, with SWPP, they can merely work into a new FPS line, and this is still dangerous. DSPFPSD? PSDFFFD?
SWWWSWPP PWPPSDD? I think it has to be right here to counter the Perm threat; if they cast Permanency and we are countering ourselves, defence is nearly impossible. Lightning Bolt can be defended from the Charm, though DSFW will give them a goblin: DSPFPSDFFD PSDFFFDSFW
SWWWSWPPWWS PWPPSDDS-WPP SWW: I feel this is better against the troll threat. DSPFPSFW? PSDFFFPS?
SWWWSWWS PWPPSDDPP It's also a little more flexible against the Perm/Charm line-up. DSPFPSDFF PSDFFFDSF
SWWWSWWS- PWPPSDDSW DSF of course ends up eating a lightning bolt, but gets a goblin in exchange. There is at least the possibility of SWD in this one, which isn't the best start to a goblin defence but is another option for stopping the DFFDD/DFFF para chain with. However, in pretty much all these lines, S/P is in serious trouble. It's instructive what a difference playing DFF makes over DFW; it's opting for the attacking play over the defensive. Many players lose games through achieving an excellent attacking position and then not capitalising on it. We all understand at this stage that position is more important than health (or we'd be opening WFP/WDDc), so why get to a dominant position and lose ground for a weak heal spell?
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Dec 19, 2009 1:20:58 GMT -5
2 MikeEB and all Actually it isn't worth to play DSP/PSD there. Firstly we reccomend not SWW/PWP-play but SWW/PWP play combined with SWD/PWW. If we throw fear, result will be (don't want to write total analysis, just wrote good S/P line and wrote normal D/Ps anwer on it DSPWPP/PSDPF was better,but if S/P called that risk it is also very bad) DSPWWW PSDPPP
SWDPPP PWWFFF
It is horrible position(I mean completely horrible). If S/P plays PSPSP/FFFF and paralyse RH of D/P D/P is forced to throw W EVERY time (otherwise he get para+ogre or antispell+troll) and after PW/FF unloop he forces 1 50/50 fireball-built in FoD. Horrible! Even worse in case S/P played SWD/PWP(we didn't reccomend it, maybe it is too bad vs DSF/PSD, actually even there it isn't disastrous) If the result of that weave is as bad as you say it is, then the D/P player should try to salvage the situation with counter+para: DSPWPP PSDPFF
SWDPPS PWWFFF
This ends up in a para-mirror situation where the D/P player is at a much smaller disadvantage. S/P can try invis as well, but then D/P just follows invis. --- It's also a little more flexible against the Perm/Charm line-up. DSPFPSDFF PSDFFFDSF
SWWWSWWS- PWPPSDDSW
DSF of course ends up eating a lightning bolt, but gets a goblin in exchange. There is at least the possibility of SWD in this one, which isn't the best start to a goblin defence but is another option for stopping the DFFDD/DFFF para chain with. Why would the D/P player charm the WS hand rather than the DS hand? Ice storm isn't a threat here.
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Dec 19, 2009 21:42:40 GMT -5
Why would the D/P player charm the WS hand rather than the DS hand? Ice storm isn't a threat here. No. But DSF forces them to eat a lightning bolt and go defensive with a goblin; SWD gives you a goblin and forces them defensive. If you fancy that you can deal with the goblin for the cost of a couple of damage, you may want to leave DSF open for them as a mistake you'd like them to make. If you think you'd prefer to just have the goblin, feel free to leave the Ice Storm open.
|
|