a 101 man onslaught

[blendedsuit]

1 2 3...

11 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

14


15 16
17
18
19
20

blah blah blah black sheep have you any wool,

2 14
14 3 44

66 7569
yessir yesir, 3 33 3333 33 bags full
998
765
4312123454387045735238495654


break the mold

(579)- 723 - 3486
64647383
factorial pentagon cous cous

[Sadat X]

[ QUOTE ]
This must be what hes talking about.

onslaught

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that was surpringly fun. I just wish I took Borak's Rettaliation into account on my 2nd set of 44's.

[wiggs73]

[ QUOTE ]
Simple explanation of my work: Mayshaque never took Borak's Retaliation into consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, but exactly how great of an oversight was this? Can we even quantify it? Would it have been successful? These are things that we can't say for certain, but to be sure, groupings could be made for improvement.


[ QUOTE ]
In depth explanation: The 8 is a simplified mod in this attack. I shored up the mod 8 by including a 9 group surrounding it. The reason that 8, as a simplified mod(or any mod for that matter) needs such protection is because when you're going to move to a full out recon in the end, then you can't have a defeated mod.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can we not? And what about the possibilities of a rogue mod? A rogue mod could actually serve as a clever decoy for the recon group of 44s that you mention later. A clever ruse for certain, and it just might work.


[ QUOTE ]
I think that Mayshaque was just wrong in thinking that he could group together 4 semi fullrites without some minor backlash from Borak's Retaliation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more here.


[ QUOTE ]
The only other move of note is my dealings with #44. I'll actually play a little game with you all here(this will be a nice little quiz for many of you beginners): Can you tell why I adjusted #44 in the way I did?

[/ QUOTE ]

You sheltered your mod 8, so balls to the wall with #44, right? I mean, there's no reason not to. Any counter attack is going to be squarly centered around the mod, which is nicely protected by 9s here, so let's send the 44 out into the field for a left flank.

In theory, this works. In practice? Well... it goes back to my whole rogue mod theory. Frees up the 9s for an ambush. Send the mod out as a decoy, ambush with the 9s, and bring the 44s to the rear to knack the retreat. I don't know. I don't have a ton of experience with 101 man onslaughts, but this makes sense to me. I'm not saying your plan is *bad*, just that I'm not sold that it's *ideal*.

[econophile]

4 8

15

16

23 42

[ghostface]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simple explanation of my work: Mayshaque never took Borak's Retaliation into consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, but exactly how great of an oversight was this? Can we even quantify it? Would it have been successful? These are things that we can't say for certain, but to be sure, groupings could be made for improvement.


[ QUOTE ]
In depth explanation: The 8 is a simplified mod in this attack. I shored up the mod 8 by including a 9 group surrounding it. The reason that 8, as a simplified mod(or any mod for that matter) needs such protection is because when you're going to move to a full out recon in the end, then you can't have a defeated mod.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can we not? And what about the possibilities of a rogue mod? A rogue mod could actually serve as a clever decoy for the recon group of 44s that you mention later. A clever ruse for certain, and it just might work.


[ QUOTE ]
I think that Mayshaque was just wrong in thinking that he could group together 4 semi fullrites without some minor backlash from Borak's Retaliation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more here.


[ QUOTE ]
The only other move of note is my dealings with #44. I'll actually play a little game with you all here(this will be a nice little quiz for many of you beginners): Can you tell why I adjusted #44 in the way I did?

[/ QUOTE ]

You sheltered your mod 8, so balls to the wall with #44, right? I mean, there's no reason not to. Any counter attack is going to be squarly centered around the mod, which is nicely protected by 9s here, so let's send the 44 out into the field for a left flank.

In theory, this works. In practice? Well... it goes back to my whole rogue mod theory. Frees up the 9s for an ambush. Send the mod out as a decoy, ambush with the 9s, and bring the 44s to the rear to knack the retreat. I don't know. I don't have a ton of experience with 101 man onslaughts, but this makes sense to me. I'm not saying your plan is *bad*, just that I'm not sold that it's *ideal*.

[/ QUOTE ]

You actually know what he's talking about?

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simple explanation of my work: Mayshaque never took Borak's Retaliation into consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, but exactly how great of an oversight was this? Can we even quantify it? Would it have been successful? These are things that we can't say for certain, but to be sure, groupings could be made for improvement.


[ QUOTE ]
In depth explanation: The 8 is a simplified mod in this attack. I shored up the mod 8 by including a 9 group surrounding it. The reason that 8, as a simplified mod(or any mod for that matter) needs such protection is because when you're going to move to a full out recon in the end, then you can't have a defeated mod.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can we not? And what about the possibilities of a rogue mod? A rogue mod could actually serve as a clever decoy for the recon group of 44s that you mention later. A clever ruse for certain, and it just might work.


[ QUOTE ]
I think that Mayshaque was just wrong in thinking that he could group together 4 semi fullrites without some minor backlash from Borak's Retaliation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more here.


[ QUOTE ]
The only other move of note is my dealings with #44. I'll actually play a little game with you all here(this will be a nice little quiz for many of you beginners): Can you tell why I adjusted #44 in the way I did?

[/ QUOTE ]

You sheltered your mod 8, so balls to the wall with #44, right? I mean, there's no reason not to. Any counter attack is going to be squarly centered around the mod, which is nicely protected by 9s here, so let's send the 44 out into the field for a left flank.

In theory, this works. In practice? Well... it goes back to my whole rogue mod theory. Frees up the 9s for an ambush. Send the mod out as a decoy, ambush with the 9s, and bring the 44s to the rear to knack the retreat. I don't know. I don't have a ton of experience with 101 man onslaughts, but this makes sense to me. I'm not saying your plan is *bad*, just that I'm not sold that it's *ideal*.

[/ QUOTE ]

You actually know what he's talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is all genius, except I don't actually understand his use of a rogue mod. I didn't think people were actually still using rogue mods, and frankly I never understood why they came back into vogue at all.

for me, the use of a self-perpetuating pi string is much more effective because it is:

a) more effective against the Scaliachi defense

and

b) more versatile in defending against the "new style" of Eastern European attackers.

but I'm certainly open to discussion on the above points.

[Freerollin`]

[ QUOTE ]
1
4 5 7




9 9 9

9 9 8 9 9








10 9 9




12 21 22
11 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

14


15 16
17
18
19
20



2 14
14 3 44
















23
24
25 26 27 28 29 30










31







32
32
32
40
32
32
32
32
32 33
32
32
32


34 35 36 37 38

101

39


42
41 44
43
46 45
47 47 48 49 50 51

55 54

56
53
52

57
58

59 60 61 66 62 63 64 63 65 67 36





68

69 70 70

71 71 72 73






74 74 75 76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83

4

84
4
85 88 86

87 85 89 90 90 91






92 92 93 94 95 96

97 98


99 100

[/ QUOTE ]

[wiggs73]

Touche.

BUT - Who said anything about the Scaliachi defense? I thought Klarkston gave a well thought out proof in his early 70s writings that we could be reasonably sure Borak's retaliation would not be Scaliachi in nature.

Now, I will agree that a self-perpetuating pi string would make much more sense than a rogue mod if the opposite were the case. However, here I thought the rogue mod would be a well disguised move.

Consider an exposed rogue mod, and free up the 9s.

8

9 9 9

10

9
9 9

12 21 22 9
11 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 9

9 14

(Later)

42
41
43
46 45
47 47 48 49 50 51

55 54 44

(Notice the new placement of the 44.)

Well, food for thought if nothing else.

Perhaps the real answer lies in some combination of the 2 formations. A self-perpatuating pi string with a rogue in the rear. Hell, use 2 mods if you have to. The 44 placement will need some tweaking of course, but it seems feasible.

Now we are getting somewhere.

[wiggs73]

[ QUOTE ]
You actually know what he's talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I thought it was fairly obvious. Maybe you missed his explanation of it. It's hard to lose posts in threads this big.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mayshaque never took Borak's Retaliation into consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

obviously, and LOL if you can't figure out why

edited to say - my solution is far superior. this is for a 32 man onslaught, and it's a derivate from Kavovlinmens giant upset in 84.

32





32




32 32 33 32


9












-6


this is pretty elementary Assani.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, no offense at all and I do actually appriciate this discussion finally getting to the point where we can debate my work, but did you cut and paste that from a Lemieux book? And lol at an obvious Lemieux disciple calling me "elementary"...wasn't he still writing basic beginners books when he was 70 years old?