Safe because of follow-ups?
- Thread starter Marcin
- Start date
Not sure on what you were watching, can you post the link?
Just the thought, but assuming what you are watching is referring to the moves within a particular string or ender that leaves them safe on block. (-1/-6), or a particular situation from a command or option select that looks like you can throw them for it but it was deceptive and left them safe in that scenario.
Just the thought, but assuming what you are watching is referring to the moves within a particular string or ender that leaves them safe on block. (-1/-6), or a particular situation from a command or option select that looks like you can throw them for it but it was deceptive and left them safe in that scenario.
It means that although not finishing the string is unsafe, there's a likely chance that the opponent will not throw punish or attack since they have to take into account that there's a follow up(s) to watch out for. Like when Kasum does 6P it's unsafe on block if she doesn't finish it but the opponent will likely hesitate and continue blocking since she has the mid kick follow up which will give her space on block or she'll go for her high follow up or her low follow up on which they'll likely try to guard low quickly if they think you'll go for that. But this doesn't always happen if the player knows you're free cancelling or if they have something to quickly shut that down
Thanks, I just checked and it was said e.g. about Christie's 6PP. So that explanation makes perfect sense.
So, basically, all initial parts of strings are "safe because of follow ups", right? (unless I guess if for some reason the follow up is bad or sth?)
And when people focus on a particular initial part, like Christie's 6PP when discussing a character, it is because it has some other desirable properties?
So, basically, all initial parts of strings are "safe because of follow ups", right? (unless I guess if for some reason the follow up is bad or sth?)
And when people focus on a particular initial part, like Christie's 6PP when discussing a character, it is because it has some other desirable properties?
'Safe because of follow-ups' is implied due to the inability to punish a particular attack because of the follow-ups that need to be taken into account. You can only punish an attack within a string on a read of the free cancel. If you try to throw something like Ayane's 3P (-14 on block move) every time, you put your self at risk of being blown up by 3PP or 3PK follow-ups (which deal hi-counter damage statuses to throw attempts).
That's why a lot of mid-string attacks are negative on hit or block, to compensate for the highly delayable follow-ups, which can punish people that incorrectly try to punish a move mid string just to get blown up by a delayed follow-up.
Christie's 6PP has 6PPP to punish people that try to punish 6PP on a misread of a free cancel. 6PPP is very delayable and has one last follow-up to increase safety in 6PPPP. As a tip, you can blown up 6PP~JAK with a fast mid or a fairly quick mid or low that tracks (I.e. If you block 6PP, a fast tracking move will retaliate against 6PP, free cancel, 6PP, etc. & 6PP~JAK, thus meaning that the main concern is when Christie uses 6PPP).
That's why a lot of mid-string attacks are negative on hit or block, to compensate for the highly delayable follow-ups, which can punish people that incorrectly try to punish a move mid string just to get blown up by a delayed follow-up.
marcin said:
Christie's 6PP has 6PPP to punish people that try to punish 6PP on a misread of a free cancel. 6PPP is very delayable and has one last follow-up to increase safety in 6PPPP. As a tip, you can blown up 6PP~JAK with a fast mid or a fairly quick mid or low that tracks (I.e. If you block 6PP, a fast tracking move will retaliate against 6PP, free cancel, 6PP, etc. & 6PP~JAK, thus meaning that the main concern is when Christie uses 6PPP).
Last edited: