Proper Raph Guide

I'm sure that can be proved through induction or some logic. 4A+B really is a "bad option" in all cases. What's great is that Raphael has more than one of these ridiculous moves... 4B+K...

I'd like to talk theory with you sometime, I have a lot to learn...
 
But back to Astaroth, my initial claim was, Astaroth won't miss a GI in 3KA. He doesn't even need to see it for being a 4A+B to have a good chance of reGIing the attack, plus the fact no one fails to see 4A+B. Add to that, the Astaroth has nothing else for his attention while he's swinging the 3K>A, so it's very unlikely he'd miss.

Condition 3KA with 4B. Hesitate on completing your Prep combo to the point where they think they might be able to shake. You have now created a situation where they'll be busy preemptively shaking instead of GI-ing - allowing him to possibly miss. Is this feasible? Certainly not. But neither is 4A+B in the first place, or delaying guaranteed combos. However, the situations exist - I feel as if you don't even acknowledge 4A+B having a niche use.

-> Your claim is this: It's something that's there. And more options is good. I want to advance a sophisticated argument to the contrary to this, because I think not only is the opposite true, it's very importantly, oppositely true. And the making of this argument might seem to give you the credit of only a newb, but, I walk over all the details because that is my way, that is how I assure myself where I'm going.
One response to your claim is out there in Raph archives, but I don't have the experience to make it my own. It is, "4A+B is *always* answerable by timing the reGI, because it reduces Raphael's choice to 0 while giving your opponent one, which he need only take to get GI advantage. Thus, 4A+B is arguably worse than doing nothing, always."
Another response to this is a challenge. More options is not better. I can see only in Taki where options themselves are a weapon. Taki has so many strings, and the annoyance of that i10 interrupt leading to three meaningfully different followups, that wrapping the mind around the possibilities must be fought at the same time as actually grasping the enemy strategy. In all other cases, a hundred varieties of kitchen knife don't add anything to the option of a good sharp dagger. I would make this argument in two ways. One, your new argument relies implicitly on the idea 4A+B may be needed, or most useful, in a situation where other options could not do what it does. I challenge this. At the very least, we know for a fact 6G can do everything 4A+B does except the large window (it's 16 frames or something?). Two, I challenge the practice you are advancing, of "that you should never try to discount any of Raphael's options." I think you should discount options. I think for a player to grow you have to ask when you can discount options.

You have said it for me - 4A+B has a larger GI window than 6G. Thus, it can be used in ways 6G cannot. The rest of your arguement, however, seems to be only a difference of ideology, one that I believe we will both have a hard time convincing the other of.

An anecdote - Jink (a Siegfried player) uses, and consistently hits, Siegfried's BBB on NH. It is not a NC, or even an NCC. It is extremely linear, and B6 or 3B beats it in just about everything but damage, which is usually offset by its terrible frames. But he hits BBB. And not only that, but also 236B - one of the slowest unblockables in the game, in addition to 4BBB. However, that's not all he does - he jagA's like no tomorrow, and I like what he does with stances, when he uses them. But he tends to make a point of using, hitting, and winning with moves that are at face value "discountable".

The point of that is this - you can utilize only 236B for whiff punishes, use only 3B to punish barely unsafe moves, or try to kill step with WS A. But why not 11B to punish whiff, even if it means only SG damage? Why not try to throw, or instigate a VE mixup? Why not just step back? Granted, none of those are orthodox, or even preferable options in most cases. But they're options. And I think that for a player to truly grow, they need to understand what options are available, which options are the most helpful for their situation, for all the correct reasons.

So that is why, I say, the argument about a 4A+B not only gets rebuffed, but it bounces right off the chest of its adversaries. The things you can say in 4A+B's defense, don't quite count as pros for it at all.

4A+B doesn't have many pros. But it does have uses, which I believe failing to acknowledge will weaken the player.

Imagine the Siegried player. He plays strong players who get inside his space a lot. He stares them down and knows his moves, and, trying them out, finds "Hey, 4A and B6 are really helpful, as are 4K and these good throws. Siegfried ain't so bad up here." He uses headbutts and the aforementioned moves with quite a skill, reading his opponents with talent and being quite tough up close, earning a name. But he can never cinch that third round. "I've got to get smarter," he says. His error, of course, is so carelessly letting opponents go through all his agA, SSH and SRSH games, 22A, 22B(~SSH) that he doesn't use. He is absolutely 100% right that he can do great stuff fighting where he does, but he failed when he didn't look for something better; not just that, he didn't look to -make- something better before he was only stuck with bad and worse. His opponent is the one who has made him choose between B6, low kicks, and 3(B)s for luck. He has applied skill to see what he has in this situation, yes, but when he closed himself off from seeing if he already had been 'beaten' by something, he, well, had already lost.
Not any kind of logic about the game, which looks at what could 'handle' the situation as it is, can arrive at the understanding of how to make it as would actually be the profitable one to you.

I can easily imagine a Siegfried player, as I am one. But I find it hard to visualize a Siegfried that plays as you have described. Mostly because some of the moves you named - 22A, 4A, throws - are not utilized much at all by some Siegfrieds, while are used to death by others. However, both groups - the one that use the moves, and the ones that don't - have something in common: the moves they do use, they all use successfully. They have grown past the weaknesses of the moves, and learned to turn them into strengths.

And any Siegfried that loses because he limits his options to B6, 1K and 3(B) has lost before the match even starts by limiting his options so much. Those are objectively some of Siegfried's best moves, but they become most effective when paired with some of Siegfried's more unorthodox moves.

I feel like this example falls a bit flat, however, because it sounds like you don't have a lot of first hand knowledge of playing Siegfried, and are trying to give examples from a Raphael's perspective of playing - a perspective that I'm finding is much more narrow than Siegfried's.
The final thing I must take care to say, is, this is not mainly an argument that 4A+B is one of "bad or worse."

But 4A+B IS bad. I had poor word choice earlier in calling 4A+B "great against Astaroth 3KA/3K(A)" - to clarify, it really is little more than "alright", and 4B really does do a much better job in all aspects against that string.

It's that the approach to thinking about the game, where you offer as the reason what you did - what you appeared to (you may know better than what you appear to say, for reasons of brevity, and English being a crappy language) - is one that plateaus, one that won't get to the real good stuff in a character, because it isn't looking in the right way. It's looking in the right place - yes, give every move its time - but you must demand more of your move, to make the strongest sum playstyle possible, than that it "can" fit. I think it's very important to be cautious of this lesson, which is what I meant by the need to make this argument in full as I started.

The way I'm interpreting this is (please correct me if I am mistaken) that you should only work on the most effective tools a character has, and ignore anything that falls into a niche use, as it wastes time. I disagree - I think spending so much time on things that have been proven to work creates a sort of stagnation in a character, one that can be dispelled by working on utilizing that character's much less orthodox options.

I did not write this to belittle Heaton. I know nothing about what you do or don't know (other than that you believed in writing exactly what you did.) Honestly, I was driven to put into some brief essay my awareness of Fighter Gaming as it is, after that insight coming from Belial as I said. I used the opportunity. If I'm wrong, I get to be corrected by teachers and trolls.

I take no offense, and mean absolutely none in return. What I mean by my post is thus - 4A+B is pretty bad, but even pretty bad moves can have uses once in awhile, or once in a blue moon. You should remember these uses instead of discard them, in the off chance that they may be helpful to you.

At the end of the day, I think this all just comes down to different playstyles - I come from a Siegfried heavy one, which is more based on risks, spontaneity, and match-up smartness. Generally speaking, the last one carries over to all characters, but I feel as if most of the Raphaels here don't appreciate spontaneous actions or unnecessary risk taking. It almost sounds as if you are trying to create one, singular method to play Raphael. I feel that characters that play similarly from one player to another actually offer less growth than characters who offer a variety of ways to play them. If I am mistaken for trying to play Raphael with ideals I learned from playing Siegfried, then so be it - I have fun playing Raphael the way I do. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please take notice, Mandritti - I have nothing but respect for someone that dedicates so much of themselves to a character they enjoy playing. I recognize that the reason you discount 4A+B is not because you're stuck complaining about Raphael's lack of good options, like so many others, but because you would rather look ahead to what good options he does have. I enjoy these back-and-forths, and would always prefer discussing Raphael with you - as opposed to many who dismiss Raphael completely.

What's great is that Raphael has more than one of these ridiculous moves... 4B+K...

If you anticipate a teleport (Cervantes, Raphael, Algol), 4B+K will hit them mid-teleport, where as B+K will just make you whiff a VE dodge. In this case, 4B+K is a better option than whiffing a VE dodge, as 4B+K will, in this situation, actually do damage and not leave you vulnerable.
 
If you anticipate a teleport (Cervantes, Raphael, Algol), 4B+K will hit them mid-teleport, where as B+K will just make you whiff a VE dodge. In this case, 4B+K is a better option than whiffing a VE dodge, as 4B+K will, in this situation, actually do damage and not leave you vulnerable.

If I anticipated a teleport I wouldn't use BT B+K in the first place, though. I'd probably dash forward before the teleport was complete. Though you're right about the theory.

When it does come to BT tactics, I don't use BT B+K... BT 2B is a frame faster and does the same amount of damage.

EDIT: Not only that, but if the opponent attacks during your whiffed BT VE, they will get death stunned. Need dmg and impact info for that though.
 
1. Proposal : We should have a rule to structure long posts in a manner that is easy to read but also gets to the point

2. Implementation:

3. Personal thoughts: I understand that mandritti puts a lot of time (and thought) into his posts, and I always make an attempt to read them from start to finish.

However, keep in mind that if you make it easy to read, you'll get better feedback.

Perhaps not 'rule' but a handbook of 'formats' or 'schemes' for building structured posts. A guide.
And, perhaps not enough time, if I am aware of formatting problems but can't solve them. To that end, I have a question. How do I make spoiler boxes on this forum?
[sblock]sblock?[/sblock]
I don't think it's spoiler
[box]box, maybe?[/box]
It would be really helpful to bundle up parts of a post. EDIT: That box is too visually obscene.

The issue is the lack of single line indent. Many paragraphs are distracting, but traditional paragraphing is impenetrable. And I would use color-coding, but what color has contrast on white and black, and doesn't sting to look at?

Heaton, the care you've taken with your reply means a lot to me. It's more to think about, so I will.
 
hey ya'll i found something interesting. unfortunately its just 1 thing. sorry if ya'll already know this just trying to help

when playing cassandra if they block 6A at or near kissing range and you transition into VE off of block it will GI her BB if she does it off of the block frames due to the hit box and advancing step.

it also GIs her 66K but the 66K has to have a weird delay and needs to be at a certain distance.
 
when playing cassandra if they block 6A at or near kissing range and you transition into VE off of block it will GI her BB if she does it off of the block frames due to the hit box and advancing step.

.

Yes this is the set-up of choice when experimenting what to do if you ever score a death-GI. I think the consensus was that, while his UB would be great.. it'd require you to pretty much anticipate the death-GI so you'd should settle for something more reactable.
 
Headers!

I. PREFACE
I think, Heaton, that we are saying many of the same facts, and we may even be advertising the same approach to doing something about them, but our two schemes of describing particulars, our way of talking, make out either one's statements to be wrong under the other's scheme. Also, I think agree there are issues of their own with the Siegfried thought experiment, so I'll just leave that to the side. (I do play Siegfried on the side; still garbz with him)

II. MY PLAN
I see there being two arguments here. One I will put off for a while yet. The other, I'm going to simplify down to the 4A+B case, and feel this out with some simple questions.

1. THE CONTENT

Jumping right in. . .
What if we just talk about players who aren't very good yet? Let's say, "players who have not proven their ability to some degree, reliably. Novice to mediocre." There's still meaning in telling some players to steer away from 4A+B, right? We still mean something by those cautions, and over and above merely saying "don't throw it around like that" or, "here's a weak point in your style" or, "change how you're playing; 's not working :\".
I say this move won't just keep them from winning this and that game when trying to use it; it's that, if they do manage to use it, by looking really hard for that setup to use it, their attention is too much removed from the other things about a match that will make them better. They will at best, encounter some success, and then fall behind peers, or even 'corrupt' their knowledge (e.g. not so much with 4A+B, but with other patterns we might talk of "bad muscle memory")

I think that when this caution is given, the advisor really feels that the attention to it is holding the player back. The player should look elsewhere for a while. He should, see what his game looks like completely without that move, and then its 'niche' can really be understood.

Does that make sense? Is it agreeable?
 
I think that when this caution is given, the advisor really feels that the attention to it is holding the player back. The player should look elsewhere for a while. He should, see what his game looks like completely without that move, and then its 'niche' can really be understood.

Does that make sense? Is it agreeable?

I've tried this approach to see if I over-rely on certain moves. I have tried to limit my usage of 3B or 22B, but the problem with this is it feels like i'm forced to resort to a strictly inferior move in each scenario I don't use 3B. At least i can conclude that I will backpeddle a lot harder without certain moves (i'd rather retreat then to do moves I don't feel is appropriate in that scenario).

If given a choice of only 4A+B or to block , I think i'll take the soul gauge damage.
 
Good lord do you Raph players type essays....

As for 4A+B, I haven't found too much use for it yet. As an Asta player I would say I never throw out 3K A unless on CH. If 3K is blocked I'm going for (A) to avoid getting whiff punished. That is when you could use 4A+B...maybe.
 



I. PREFACE
Yeah, I pretty much agree with you on just about all your points.

II. MY PLAN
To type stuff about 4A+B, and then some stuff about 4A.

1. THE CONTENT
As far as novice to intermediate characters, I'd tell them to learn how 3B, 22B, 236B, etc; work, and save niche things like 4A+B or 4A for after they've gotten a good feel for Raphael. They can hold off on learning the little intricate moves until after they've got a good handle on his main moveset.

Also, they should know all options when responding to a move, not just the best or worst ones, in case of becoming predictable. IE Respond to low horizontal strings with not just blocking, but also jumping, GI, and SBH (Siegfried).

A better example of this sort of thing is Raphael's 4A. This move is pretty terrible and I would tell starting Raphael players to step if they feel an oncoming vertical, or WS A a stepping opponent. But it has really good application against certain stances. Usually, it will either knock their opponent out of the stance, or leave the opponent facing away from Raphael as they both whiff. However, the move has a lot of problems - it's negative on CH, and also high. So there are a lot of factors that go into "should I 4a?" besides just "is he in a stance?" But it has a good use once you realize how and when to use it.

I think having a new person learn all of Raphael's moves at once is counterproductive to turning him into a good player. I think having a seasoned Raphael player take a look back at some of his less used moves and try to be creative with them will help him grow as a player.
 
So yeah. That is agreement.
This leaves the part where I believe in "one single strategy." Answering that might be a discussion for Tactics subforum. Thoughts?
Back to the thread at large: (header font is Trebuchet MS)

i. Commiserating
I still will never complain about Raph, I play him because I play him, but... man, I load some other characters just to dance around and see what space feels like with their moveset, and... holy shit, using them is so much easier. :\ You don't have to see everything to play decently with those characters. You can play around the possibilities and choose the risks. You will never win spamming Bullrush and random mixup, but.. you make people do shit if you rep that strong, and then you can react to that.

1. How I see Raphael's defining weakness
Raphael is ... the biggest thing about Raphael is that his -only- guard pressure is Soul Gauge damage on safe mids, while his own punishes scale badly in -17 to -19 range, same to punish moves ending in full crouch =-15 or quicker. Add, that punishes or not, Raphael is not better off for hitting you the way other characters are; a little +4 doesn't change what can answer his moves. And if he guards something, his guaranteed damage is low and his mixup potential is still weak. You have to play to take some kind of advantage really, really early and quickly through luck or speed, then play it like you aren't going to make a mistake. The only reason he comes back from a large gap is if the opponent gets frustrated, overthinks something, or disregards your KND ability on some straight approach.

2. What Raphael seems to have as strength
The moves he has to press advantage - his combo, prep, his followup to launch, his oki, while this is all "poor", it -is- all concentrated in the very moves of his which are his most damaging. Other characters never hurt so much even eating their OTG damage, though it's more likely they'll keep you there with fear or sweeps to add up. Raphael doesn't make people afraid to try random shit on offense, which is lame, but he can embarrass people quickly if he does hit a few times. There may also be a way to turn the last sentence of previous section into a gameplan.

'Blocking' is passive for Raph. He needs to be whiff punishing. I kinda like it, but I'll have to pick up a character who makes blocking dangerous to see the other extreme.

X. Now reply with something.
What do you guys do to make people scared to let you block something, or do you agree? Meanwhile, I'm incorporating the FT3 round nature of matches to a strategy. Soul Gauge + an amusing CH trick I've found equal what I hope to be a frustrating gimmick against a particular character. Maybe others.

EDIT: And I seriously think Raph should combo 3{B} to Prep B only unless Prep BB would end the round. -2 sucks; +0 annoys the shit out of people, and Prep B{B} is very rarely a good option.
 
On his strengths :
Raph has some really annoying "deliberate incompletion" of strings that can drive the opponent nuts. Whether on block or on hit, as long as he maintains his range it may really force your opponent to hesitate unreasonably. Giving up on 10 damage due to incomplete strings will pay off when you can score juicier CHs or 44Bs once your opponent gets fed up with Raph bullshit. You have to work the opposing player as much as the opposing character.

On his weaknesses:
I agree that after scoring a NH 6K and wrB, you are probably in for a worse mixup than your opponent if you decide to attack. Both of those moves push out far, such that you'd be hard press to do something that can actually make contact with the opponent without opening yourself for an easy TC or interrupt.

On punishing:
I agree that raph's WR punish is really bad, so FC setups seem to work raph unless they rely on absurd pushback
 
we're talking about punishes here. a i17 move that pretty much kills all your momentum is not "good".
don't kid yourself, Raph never has momentum. You can only force them to Step G, so at advantage I usually end up backstepping and poking with either 1A or 3B, or I'll run up and throw them if I notice they don't like to step-attack.

B and BB are horrible. Single B shouldn't cause anyone to hesitate... you threaten with a low damage and -2 on hit/CH. On hit, it's pretty good when spaced, since at +0 your movelist may have the advantage. It's definitely better than BB, which doesn't push back much at all and you're at -12... unless spaced at the tip you're pretty much committed to blocking.

Even if the opponent waits to confirm that string's stopped, Raph doesn't get much pseudo-advantage... it's pretty telegraphed. I haven't had much success using it against NFK offline. It's something you should only pull out once in a while, in tense situations, like at the end of a round.

It's really not bad, but he has better tools. Single A is way better as an annoyer. 3K and 6K are better mids up close, and 3B is better at a distance. Everything about these moves is better.
 
B is good cause it sets up 44B
thats why people hesitate, it's the only reason people hesitate vs raph
Prep A? lol short ass range
prep B? who cares it's 20 damage
4A? who cares move is trash

B is also his safest poke on whiff .... you get launched for 3B!
nice risk/reward eh?
20 damage linear poke that is easily launch punishable if they step it
 
4A is not that bad....i like it a lot against relic obviously if you don t expect relic A or you are out of range. (relic B whiffs).
i defend also 4K...it has a longer range than 3K and tracks better than 6K.

4A is good also to escape difficult RO situations....better take few damage than losing the match....on hit also the disadvantage is mitigated by the fact opponent needs to realign...

then at +4 you have lot of choices....there are tons of slow moves that are awesome.....the problem is forcing them to hesitate to attack at -4 considering the low risk of being CH....but in those case it becomes again a 50% mindgame on 44B or 4B being fast move almost always high...or if linear bait a whiff for the usual 33K:B.

if they step, you can align and risk a 11B if its unexpected it's not that easy to step (epecially if they have a wall on thein right side) that puts a huge CF pressure....sometimes i replace a punisher with that.....its risky but the reward in term of CF pressure is huge.

why prep B is not a decent punisher? on hit seems quite solid to me.
 
don't kid yourself, Raph never has momentum.

We're in a raph forum, so lets keep our comments in context please. I don't like to exaggerate that raph is NOT a momentum-fueled character but I do agree that sometimes retreating when it appears you have the advantage pays off royally especially for raph.

why prep B is not a decent punisher? on hit seems quite solid to me.

Isn't the definition of a punish from guarding from neutral?

Anyways, as bad damage and frames 4A is, it is undeniably raph's most reliable tracking move. Sometimes, if you know they are going to evade laterally AND not TC, 4A is the way to go without dealing with the side-specific whiffing issues that Raph is notorious for.
 
B is good cause it sets up 44B
thats why people hesitate, it's the only reason people hesitate vs raph
They shouldn't. The gap between the last effective aGI or TC frame and the attack is too large, and the backstep is too <not-actually-there> for it to complicate any timing your opponent has for you (for your GI). So it doesn't introduce anything additional to think about, and you can be GI'd on reaction as sure as any other character's good lows in this game can be seen, plus you are steppable and runnable.
If it contributes something, it's simply to force your opponent to include certain moves in what he is doing. But I've yet to see a character not named Talim for whom this changes what they generally do in any MU. It stops degenerate counterstrats to what Raph can't do.

I will be forcing myself to use this move *only* for the low aGI AT until my soul wants it back for 'being annoying'.

4A is good also to escape difficult RO situations....better take few damage than losing the match....on hit also the disadvantage is mitigated by the fact opponent needs to realign...

Step into A throw for a RO, darkfender. Or get R.S. grab for the same thing. Better to win the match outright than both of those. You're giving up a chance to be scary.

I do 4A once in a whole day of casuals, and I did it once in my first tournament (including the casuals). I would rather aggressively respace at a time when it could hit step but something else couldn't.
 
Back