What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*** Official Onslaught Thread *** (1 Viewer)

jwvdcw

Footballguy
I was going to hold out on posting this for a while, but TannerBoyle's thread got me excited to post it. I consider this one of my best works. Although the similarities to Antebellum's corrections are certainly present, I think you'll see that I definitely distinguish myself.

Mayshaque originally posted what many consider to be one of the finest 101 man onslaughts in his first group of essays. Not to sound too conceited, but while his work was revolutionary at the time, it did have flaws and I think I have actually improved upon his work. I'll give a simple and more in depth explanation...

Simple explanation of my work: Mayshaque never took Borak's Retaliation into consideration. Yes that might be a minor issue to some, but when we're talking about some of the most acclaimed onslaughts of all time, every little detail matters.

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. Safety needs to come first this early....Mayshaque underestimated this imo. Secondly, I completely revamped Mayshaque's mid-late act. I don't know where to begin here, but 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. I know that its ballsy to critisize a legend like that, but I really feel strongly about this. I did a few minor adjustments to 3, 16, and 21, but I won't go into too much detail there. I'm sure you'll see that I applied Brian to 99, which even the strongest Mayshaque supporters would concede. 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? Over than that, everything else should be pretty evident. Feel free to post comments. I'm really proud of this work, as I consider it one of my finest...

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why was 101 in the middle? :banned:
Mayshaque was employing a recon at the end. To achieve proper balance he correctly deemed it necessary to place 101 at just that point. I completely agree with him on this and I left it as is.
 
I have to admit I can't quite grasp everything that's going on here, but it seems to me that the real departure from Mayshaque is in the 70 series. As far as I know he never would have used those positions unless countering a Dobbin sequence. Maybe I'm wrong; I am still getting the hang of this.I'm pretty sure I understand the 44 adjustment, but I don't want to spoil it for anyone else...Impressive work in any case. Hats off.

 
I have to admit I can't quite grasp everything that's going on here, but it seems to me that the real departure from Mayshaque is in the 70 series. As far as I know he never would have used those positions unless countering a Dobbin sequence. Maybe I'm wrong; I am still getting the hang of this.

I'm pretty sure I understand the 44 adjustment, but I don't want to spoil it for anyone else...

Impressive work in any case. Hats off.
Good observation, although note that 75 is probably the key part of my 70 series just like Mayshaque. So while its a bit different, there are some similarities. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts....maybe give some analysis of Tanner's work in his thread.

 
Jwvdcw, I must say that while overall this looks solid, you have ignored Maloney's corrolary regarding the employment of the 23 array. I find this surprising, especially since you attempted the employment in your 42 man onslaught, when we all know this type of array is practically useless in onslaughts in the range of 10-60. I gave tanner some slack for omitting the 23 array in his 84 man onslaught. But for you to blatantly ignore it here tells me you're fairly new to this, or just fishing us here.

 
Please stop faxing me with requests for this!Its right here! USE THE DAMN SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE YOU SEND ME A HUNDRED DAMN FAXES!!!!!!!!

 
I watched 101 Man Onslaught in my room the last time I was in Vegas. I have to admit, it was kind of disturbing and degrading, but I had already paid my $9.99 so I felt obliged to watch it till the end.

 
I watched 101 Man Onslaught in my room the last time I was in Vegas. I have to admit, it was kind of disturbing and degrading, but I had already paid my $9.99 so I felt obliged to watch it till the end.
:lmao:
 
Jwvdcw, I must say that while overall this looks solid, you have ignored Maloney's corrolary regarding the employment of the 23 array. I find this surprising, especially since you attempted the employment in your 42 man onslaught, when we all know this type of array is practically useless in onslaughts in the range of 10-60.

I gave tanner some slack for omitting the 23 array in his 84 man onslaught. But for you to blatantly ignore it here tells me you're fairly new to this, or just fishing us here.
Please.
 
Jwvdcw, I must say that while overall this looks solid, you have ignored Maloney's corrolary regarding the employment of the 23 array.  I find this surprising, especially since you attempted the employment in your 42 man onslaught, when we all know this type of array is practically useless in onslaughts in the range of 10-60. 

I gave tanner some slack for omitting the 23 array in his 84 man onslaught.  But for you to blatantly ignore it here tells me you're fairly new to this, or just fishing us here.
Please.
Beg pardon?
 
Jwvdcw, I must say that while overall this looks solid, you have ignored Maloney's corrolary regarding the employment of the 23 array.  I find this surprising, especially since you attempted the employment in your 42 man onslaught, when we all know this type of array is practically useless in onslaughts in the range of 10-60. 

I gave tanner some slack for omitting the 23 array in his 84 man onslaught.  But for you to blatantly ignore it here tells me you're fairly new to this, or just fishing us here.
:goodposting: Shuke knows his onslaught

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jwvdcw, I must say that while overall this looks solid, you have ignored Maloney's corrolary regarding the employment of the 23 array. I find this surprising, especially since you attempted the employment in your 42 man onslaught, when we all know this type of array is practically useless in onslaughts in the range of 10-60.

I gave tanner some slack for omitting the 23 array in his 84 man onslaught. But for you to blatantly ignore it here tells me you're fairly new to this, or just fishing us here.
My friend, look at the placement of 16 and 96. Then rethink your comments.
 
I was going to hold out on posting this for a while, but TannerBoyle's thread got me excited to post it. I consider this one of my best works. Although the similarities to Antebellum's corrections are certainly present, I think you'll see that I definitely distinguish myself.

Mayshaque originally posted what many consider to be one of the finest 101 man onslaughts in his first group of essays. Not to sound too conceited, but while his work was revolutionary at the time, it did have flaws and I think I have actually improved upon his work. I'll give a simple and more in depth explanation...

Simple explanation of my work: Mayshaque never took Borak's Retaliation into consideration. Yes that might be a minor issue to some, but when we're talking about some of the most acclaimed onslaughts of all time, every little detail matters.

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. Safety needs to come first this early....Mayshaque underestimated this imo. Secondly, I completely revamped Mayshaque's mid-late act. I don't know where to begin here, but 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. I know that its ballsy to critisize a legend like that, but I really feel strongly about this. I did a few minor adjustments to 3, 16, and 21, but I won't go into too much detail there. I'm sure you'll see that I applied Brian to 99, which even the strongest Mayshaque supporters would concede. 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? Over than that, everything else should be pretty evident. Feel free to post comments. I'm really proud of this work, as I consider it one of my finest...

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
You have all missed the real gem in this post.Shame you all.

 
Jwvdcw, I must say that while overall this looks solid, you have ignored Maloney's corrolary regarding the employment of the 23 array.  I find this surprising, especially since you attempted the employment in your 42 man onslaught, when we all know this type of array is practically useless in onslaughts in the range of 10-60. 

I gave tanner some slack for omitting the 23 array in his 84 man onslaught.  But for you to blatantly ignore it here tells me you're fairly new to this, or just fishing us here.
My friend, look at the placement of 16 and 96. Then rethink your comments.
Exactly.
 
Jwvdcw, I must say that while overall this looks solid, you have ignored Maloney's corrolary regarding the employment of the 23 array.  I find this surprising, especially since you attempted the employment in your 42 man onslaught, when we all know this type of array is practically useless in onslaughts in the range of 10-60. 

I gave tanner some slack for omitting the 23 array in his 84 man onslaught.  But for you to blatantly ignore it here tells me you're fairly new to this, or just fishing us here.
My friend, look at the placement of 16 and 96. Then rethink your comments.
Now I know you're fishing.
 
JW can you look at my 1 man onslaught and tell me what you think? I'm really, really new to this.

1
I'll definitely be glad to help, but create a separate thread for it so that I can give it the attention it deserves.
 
42 man onslaught and now 101? Dare I ask what's next?
did you miss my 84 man onslaught?
Since the creation of the 101 man onslaught, the 84 man onslaught is dead to me.
:rolleyes:
Agreed- that was a silly comment. I'd equate that to saying that once analytic geometry was created, we didn't need algebra anymore(obviously I'm not putting our work in the same class as Decartes or other mathematical geniuses; Its just an analogy). Both stand alone on their own merits.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top