Anti-Spell

[Slartucker]

Inspired by a question Vermont asked me, I'm putting together an analysis of SPFP for the Refuge, parallel in some ways to my analysis of Invis. I have already been analyzing and organizing a number of weaves that can be used with SPFP, but there are probably a few good ones missing from my list. So this is an open question: what do you find helpful in casting, weaving in, or defending against SPFP?

[awall]

I find that Antispell is rarely an effective attack unless you can time another useful spell for one of the two turns afterward, when they can't counter it. What counts as "useful" varies by occasion, but generally it's one of Ogre, Charm, Bolt, or Fireball. The three-gesture disruptions aren't that great because they won't prevent the opponent from countering Permanency (or a Troll), so about the best you can do is get a Charm, which isn't all that much better than Antispell. If you get disrupted yourself the turn you cast it, it's pretty hard to get anything worthwhile out of it at all.

It seems that the only way to get a clean Antispell off is to gesture PS or FSS and force your opponent to react to it. Then you dummy into PSP or FSSP, use your other hand to disrupt their other hand, and land Antispell before they can finish anything too bad. Even so, if they gestured WP to stop the charm/fireball, they can throw zero-hour WPFD/xxx> at you for four damage, which will likely hurt you worse than your Antispell hurt them. This seems to relegate SPFP to a similar status to Blindness, in that it looks great on paper but tends to bite you in the behind if you go for it at the wrong time.

Hitting with Antispell the turn after a successful Charm can be nice, as it gives you your choice of a free Lightning Bolt or a Blindness/Perm/Protection combo. They can try to mirror it, but then you go into a standard permanency weave and they're in hot water.

I know you're not a fan of Para-Antispell, but SPFPWP with para on the other hand seems like it might also be sorta good. DSFFFC/xSPFPC isn't bad either if you can get it off, but it's tricky; other than the maladroit on turn 3 which can be self targeted if necessary, you're open to all sorts of disruption while you set this one up..

Of course, the 500-pound gorilla that I'm not mentioning is Invis, as most of the stronger Antispell weaves come out of that. But that's mostly covered on your invis analysis page already. Delayed Antispell also gets an honorable mention, although it's much, much harder to get off successfully than it looks.

[Slartucker]

SPFPWP by itself isn't great, but forked with SPFPSF, it's like a much better version of the F/P opening. I'm not sure how that escaped the snippet I put on the Refuge; my bad for too quickly lifting material.

[taliesin]

awall said:

The three-gesture disruptions aren't that great because they won't prevent the opponent from countering Permanency (or a Troll), so about the best you can do is get a Charm, which isn't all that much better than Antispell.

Except when it's a double charm, by itself a frequently game-winning advantage:

xxx-WPPSD-
xxx-WWW-WW

SPFPSDFFDD
---DPPSDFW

in fact, if Amnesia hits against a W/W defence, you have the unenviable choice of risking either the Perm or the double charm. Ah, but if they head for Perm Invis you can just Dispel?

xxx-WPPC
xxx-WWWC

SPFPSDWFFFF
---DPPWPFSSS

and you can, but clapping opens you to a potential FoD kill.

In any case, the initiative advantage of an Antispell can be significant even if you merely get to specify one single gesture on the other hand on the turn of the Antispell. Even lacking this it generally provides a reasonable measure of control for the next few turns as they must defend both Charm and Permanency, and the charm can be devastating with good spellflow on the other hand.

It is by no means necessarily ineffectual even with a weaker Antispell setup against a strong and correct defence by your opponent. The problem is that an opponent who guesses correctly may escape without harm.

It is particularly compromised against a summoning opponent as its uncertain payoff makes taking damage a risky proposition. It is still possible to come out ahead against a smaller monster, but this is not guaranteed.

Its advantages are muted when your opponent manages to disrupt you on the turn of casting Antispell, though in the case of Maladroit it is still possible to continue a strong attack. They are altogether removed when your opponent succeeds in casting Invis on the Antispell turn.

It is often easier to cast Antispell when you have a small monster of your own - this way, the final turn damage is often diverted to your monster rather than yourself.

awall said:

This seems to relegate SPFP to a similar status to Blindness, in that it looks great on paper but tends to bite you in the behind if you go for it at the wrong time.

No, SPFP is much more similar to Invis. Going for it at the wrong time can be game-losing, its gains are uncertain, but strong play and a modicum of luck can convert the aftermath to a hugely positive position for the caster. I use it much more regularly than either Blindness or Invis.

awall said:

Hitting with Antispell the turn after a successful Charm can be nice, as it gives you your choice of a free Lightning Bolt or a Blindness/Perm/Protection combo. They can try to mirror it, but then you go into a standard permanency weave and they're in hot water.

While Lightning looks superficially reasonable here, the Blindness weave is much more dangerous. It is however inadvisable to enter a standard permanency weave if they clap to mirror, either way - instead it is preferable to take para and Troll:

xxxx-Cxxx
xxxx-CDPP

-SPFPSFW
PSDFWFFF

awall said:

I know you're not a fan of Para-Antispell, but SPFPWP with para on the other hand seems like it might also be sorta good.

Slarty may not be a fan, but I'm well aware of its merits. The mistake most people make is continuing the Para - its usefulness lies in impairing the first post-Antispell gesture.

Consider:

xxx-WPP
xxx--WW

1)
SPFPSDF
FFFFPSDF

and

2)
SPFPSDW
FFFFPSDF

1) leads to a double charm.
2) leads to a nasty Permanency defence where one counterspell has to protect against a bunch of threats.

Of course, if your opponent was desperately afraid of ParaFoD and instead elected to try paralysis, you have a certain-to-succeed Troll summoning ready to go.

Again, it's a typical Antispell attack all over - if successful, it's crushing, if not, you've got no compensation for any damage you took to cast it.

awall said:

Of course, the 500-pound gorilla that I'm not mentioning is Invis, as most of the stronger Antispell weaves come out of that. But that's mostly covered on your invis analysis page already. Delayed Antispell also gets an honorable mention, although it's much, much harder to get off successfully than it looks.

Remember also double Antispell, which can sometimes be got off successfully against a player on the defensive without Invis and which can convert into a free Troll or a seriously tough Permanency gauntlet.

To sum up: Antispell is over-rated by many beginning players and under-rated by many advanced players. Its payoffs frequently involve some element of random chance, but with correct play often cannot be perfectly defended against and are significant where successful.

[BioLogIn]

I have a question regarding double antispell. It is marked as a "'game-winning" on the Refuge in invisibility analysis, but lately I've found myself unable to use advantage I'v got against WW/WW defence. So, what favorable options we have after successfull double antispell?

[Citanest]

Couple of suggestions for BioLogIn;


1) You can guarantee a troll from the first Antispell

2) Convert the Antispells into Charms, the first will get through and thus force a Lightning Bolt through too. If they clapped, they are consigned to double, triple or quadruple clapping to navigate your Permanency.


3)

Something more exotic -

12345678
SPFPSDFP
xSPFPWPF

xxx--WW-
xxx--WW?


If their question mark is a W,P, or something meaning they can't hit you with a disruption in 2 turns, you win with PDWP/FoD. If it turns into a disruption, Cure heavy + Cause heavy gives a 5 point lead with only minimal initiative loss. They could WDDc, but you can make them pay heavily for that easily.

Remember that LH:F on turn 8 causes an unstoppable Bolt if they defend the PDWP/FoD threat, and that's a winner combined with Cause Heavy. It's a good dummy against a top player.




Those are just my immediate thoughts. I don't think there is an instant win possible after a double Antispell, but you have a choice of Trolls, damage, or hair-raising 50/50's to throw at your opponent.

[BioLogIn]

Thanks for input, Citanest!

1) yep, that's clear, but clearly not gamewinning yet, especially considering they have most likely gone for W/W. still a simple and solid option of course.

2) the trouble with this weave is that:

SPFPSDF?
xSPFPSD?

xxx--WW-
xxx--WWS

IF they target counter right and then clap responding your DFF (which was almost my case), you still have tons of initiative (their spellflow totally wrecked with clap), but you haven't done any real damage so far. Maybe I should've switched to para as soon as they guessed with counter...
Still a 50\50 doublecharm\permanency shot isn't bad at all.

3) Yep, FoD off the second antispell is the variant I came up with after the game. And TaliFoD version you offer is even better then paraFoD thanks to their defencive WW/WW position (doesn't have a fork to a LBolt though, so it is all up to their gesture in RH:8).

Summing all that, I took Slarty's words about gamewinning too literally, but your options are still very solid.

Thanks for the help once again.

[Slartucker]

biologin said:

I have a question regarding double antispell. It is marked as a "'game-winning" on the Refuge in invisibility analysis, but lately I've found myself unable to use advantage I'v got against WW/WW defence.

It's actually marked as "Game-winning if it isn't defended against." So really, you took the first word too literally, and the rest of the sentence not literally enough

[BioLogIn]

Slartucker
I didn't wanted to criticise you at all ) Wanted to thank you for your invisibility analysis instead.

[Slartucker]

No no, don't worry about it, I didn't take it as criticism. I'm just pretty hair-trigger when it comes to analyzing language.

[BioLogIn]

Ok. It is just that I'm not a native english speaker so I wasn't going to compete with anyone in English metaphors or analysis or whatever... )

[taliesin]

Also, don't forget the prospect of Permanent Permanency. You can fork them with that, Perm Charm and Perm Amnesia - or even have another disruption for the turn after that (DWFF with Perm Blindness or Para being options is always popular). However, PDWP/WPP is a pretty good response to this. I used to use this a lot more when people did respond W/W. These days I would usually go with the troll, which is a certain edge and a much better response to PDWP/WPP.

Citanest's PDWP FoD is nice and elegant, however, and very advantageous against W/W - and P/W too, as you can charm the P hand. I would be tempted to recommend this over the troll, as it has a significant chance of killing your opponent, and they cannot defend the FoD without opening themselves to the prospect of the WPFD and DFFDD (and again, 8 damage is usually game-winning). In practice only a select few players will see the FoD from there anyway, and in their concern to avoid damage most will blunder into your trap and lose outright.

[xade]

Ya, most often, the threat of permanacy can be killed off with PDWP/WPP... however, as you point out, switching to other weaves can be very dangerous... Me, I love (masocist much?) getting to the point of Shot-gun clapping... where it is all about psyching out the competition... Yep, I do love a good round of applaudes...

[Derfel]

Me - I'm Pro-Spell.

[xade]

pffft, yeah, you would be...
You pro-spellers are all the same...