Joey wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Sun Tzu was far more concerned with achieving strategic goals than tactical victories, despised prolonged warfare, and would find the universe of 40k utterly dystopian.

That being said probably the best 1 line quote that can be pulled from the art of war is "All war is deception"

That quote is meaningless. And how does it apply to 40k?
Sun Tsu is over-rated. I much prefer Van Clauswitz.

High mobility armies such as Eldar are capable of making use of it. It's how I played at least. You have the mobility to look like you are performing one plan when in fact you were really using an entirely different one the whole time. To simplify it's like the line in the sand and attack with the wind thing, yet I move the line and leave them with just the wind.

Nicorex wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:Honestly a lot of Sun Tsu's teachings don't apply to a minature game. Take the following example.

Corrupt his morals by insidious gifts leading him into excess. Disturb and unsettle his mind by presenting him with lovely women.

Well, ok, maybe that's not such a bad idea. Its a shame that most players don't have an abundance of lovely women they can throw at their 40k opponent.

On the other hand.. Say I hire a beautiful buxom semi-scantaly clad escort to follow me around at a tourney. This may distract my opponents enought to grant me a tactical edge. Like any war, the question is how far are you willing to go to achive victory.

You'll end up spending more on the wench than you'll take home in winnings

The amount of mangled quotes in this thread lend a lot of credence to what the OP said.

The biggest quote to help me? "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
-Sun Tzu

Paraphrase: Thou shall not suffer a witch to live (Bible).

I follow this and sometimes go out of my way to destroy the witches and wizards of 40k, the psykers. Not the best tactic, but sometimes I do slightly crazy things to make my friendly games more interesting.

broodstar wrote:"Never attack where the enemy expects you to come." - George Patton

I challenge this, since it doesn't really help anyone tactically, and seems more common sense than anything, but regardless...

A general will see what his enemy expects him to do, and do something else. A good general will see what his enemy expects him to do, and turn it against him, by doing exactly that and exactly the opposite at the same time. An enemy who has to completely re-think is an enemy who only has to deal with a single thing - a counter. An enemy who must deal with the expected and the unexpected must deal with more - what he expected, and a counter to what he did not, as well as the chance that what he expected is not really that at all.

By attacking where the enemy expects you to come, you draw him into a false sense of victory; by making an unexpected action in addition, you force him to act against it, possibly weakening his defense to the expected; you force him to keep dealing with what he expected; and you force him to think about further unexpected actions. An enemy who has had certain victory pulled from his hands will be confused; an enemy who must deal with the expected and the unexpected will be torn between tactics and strategies; an enemy who is confused and indecisive is unprepared and prone to mistakes; an enemy who is unprepared and error-prone is defeated.

You can tell when someone plays Eldar sometimes.

I prefer Moltke.

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."

Joey wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Sun Tzu was far more concerned with achieving strategic goals than tactical victories, despised prolonged warfare, and would find the universe of 40k utterly dystopian.

That being said probably the best 1 line quote that can be pulled from the art of war is "All war is deception"

That quote is meaningless. And how does it apply to 40k?
Sun Tsu is over-rated. I much prefer Van Clauswitz.

Being transparent and easy to read is bad in both warfare, 40k, and poker.

Van Clauswitz wrote the book on 19th & 20th century tactics, but he wrote volumes on tactics with little on strategy, and is largely obsolete in an age of asymmetrical warfare against insurgencies and cold wars between nuclear armed superpowers. 3 good examples are Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq 3 wars where US military forces have never lost a battle, and 3 wars where the fact the USA never lost a battle is completely irrelevant to the success or failure of the war. People can (and have) written many books on how the success and failures of those wars have depended on using or ignoring Sun Tzu's advise.

notabot187 wrote:About the only thing I really make use out of is the idea of local superiority, not sure who is most famous for it, but its the most appropriate for 40k. Its one of the reasons why I really dislike horde orks, its far to easy to kill them with basic tactics like a refused flank.

Yeah, I know Clausewitz and Moltke both talk about "gravity", which in most cases refers to force concentration (and thus local superiority). It applies to all armies in 40k, obviously, but there are some armies, like grey knights and CSM, that are built solely around this principle.

Horde armies do still work though, through another idea, that of field position. Force concentration armies are good for what they do (look no further than paladins in 40k or the blitzkreig in the real world), but in both the real world and in 40k, you can stop this type of army, it just requires you to behave a certain way with movement. Certain ways which are greatly helped when you dominate the area, which is helped if you have lots of minis everywhere.

If you make it so that your opponent has to attack everywhere at once, you dilute the quality of force concentration armies.

labmouse42 wrote:

Corrupt his morals by insidious gifts leading him into excess. Disturb and unsettle his mind by presenting him with lovely women.

Well, ok, maybe that's not such a bad idea. Its a shame that most players don't have an abundance of lovely women they can throw at their 40k opponent.

Lol, I play foot guard... LADIES!

lizardwolf19 wrote:I believe the best quote of Sun Tzu that applies to 40k is: "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

Oh, this one I've DEFINITELY used. Once you play a couple of games against any particular other player, you begin to learn their idiosyncrasies, and then to exploit them.

For example, there is one player at my FLGS who looks too closely at the body count. He will go out of his way to pick off minis that have no strategic value if it means he can remove more of my models from the board, and on the other hand, once he starts taking casualties, he pretty quickly goes into force preservation mode, even if it means sacrificing his ability to claim objectives. I've won games against this guy with little more than just always pressing forward no matter once, because I know that against him, a 40k game is a game of chicken, and I can always get him to blink first. There's another guy who plays 40k with proverbially white gloves on. Games are all about maneuver, not killing. I've won against this guy just by threatening assault before. There's another guy who plays things cool almost to a fault. So long as I don't make any rash moves, I know the he's not going to anything fast or tricksy that I have to look out for. Slow and steady wins that race.

As for me, probably my most defining feature is that I'm out for blood. With only one exception (wherein I got wiped), you can never defeat me just by killing off my minis. It's just not possible to break my morale. The liability, though, is sometimes I seek blood where it isn't necessary, and I've definitely had my opponents bait me into making worthless sacrifices before.

curran12 wrote:"No plan survives contact with the enemy."

You do have to be a little careful with that, though. People who don't even bother planning at all wind up doing more or less nothing (a common noob problem). I think it's more have a plan and a backup and a backup, or have a plan with a bunch of contingencies, rather than, no plan will survive, so don't bother making them in the first place.

3 wars that were directed by politicans and not Generals.

Avatar 720 wrote:
By attacking where the enemy expects you to come, you draw him into a false sense of victory; by making an unexpected action in addition, you force him to act against it, possibly weakening his defense to the expected; you force him to keep dealing with what he expected; and you force him to think about further unexpected actions. An enemy who has had certain victory pulled from his hands will be confused; an enemy who must deal with the expected and the unexpected will be torn between tactics and strategies; an enemy who is confused and indecisive is unprepared and prone to mistakes; an enemy who is unprepared and error-prone is defeated.

I think you just answered your own question. If your put a few guants and Hive Guard in the lane he expects you to come from, that will be your distraction (not your attack) I come out from everywhere, Genestealers outflanking, Mawlocs deepstiking,etc. When you attack from multiple angles you create disorder and panic.

The problem with this is that there is no fog of war in 40k. If you have three huge units of genestealers, I know in advance that you're going to be outflanking with three huge units of genestealers. Likewise, I can always see everything on the board in perfect detail. There is no way that you can catch your opponent off guard in 40k like you can in the real world.

I mean, I guess your opponent can underestimate things they haven't had first-hand experience with, but that works like once. Nobody forgets an al'rahem outflank or a combi-melta sternguard in a drop pod once they see it once.

broodstar wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:
By attacking where the enemy expects you to come, you draw him into a false sense of victory; by making an unexpected action in addition, you force him to act against it, possibly weakening his defense to the expected; you force him to keep dealing with what he expected; and you force him to think about further unexpected actions. An enemy who has had certain victory pulled from his hands will be confused; an enemy who must deal with the expected and the unexpected will be torn between tactics and strategies; an enemy who is confused and indecisive is unprepared and prone to mistakes; an enemy who is unprepared and error-prone is defeated.

I think you just answered your own question. If your put a few guants and Hive Guard in the lane he expects you to come from, that will be your distraction (not your attack) I come out from everywhere, Genestealers outflanking, Mawlocs deepstiking,etc. When you attack from multiple angles you create disorder and panic.

I don't recall asking a question...

Also, your post just proves my point in that the quote telling you to never attack where you are expected to is not always true. In order to function as a successful distraction, some attacking must be done, otherwise the bait will not be fully taken. If you just hang back and do nothing, it won't work effectively.

"Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force." (often paraphrased as "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.")
On Strategy (1871)

Field Marshall Helmuth Carl Bernard Graf von Moltke



It reminds me that no matter how well I think I've built my army or how solid my strategy is... there are variables in play that I can not control. What it leads me to do is build more balanced, flexible lists that can adjust their tactics on-the-fly as the unfolding scenario demands... rather than one-trick-pony or gimmick armies that are very effective at one thing but rather inept at others.

"I am not afraid of an army of lions lead by sheep, but an army of sheep lead by a lion." Alexander the Great.

In 40k, your HQ choice is the most important choice.

Mr Nobody wrote:"I am not afraid of an army of lions lead by sheep, but an army of sheep lead by a lion." Alexander the Great.

In 40k, your HQ choice is the most important choice.

Unless you're Tau; Crisis Commanders don't really add all that much, but they're mandatory, so I guess they could be seen as important - just not in any sort of strategic way.

Mr Nobody wrote:"I am not afraid of an army of lions lead by sheep, but an army of sheep lead by a lion." Alexander the Great.

In 40k, your HQ choice is the most important choice.

Reading that quote I'd consider the player the general, not the HQ.

"Klotzen, nicht Kleckern!" -- Heinz Guderian.
the rough translation is "boot them, don't spatter them." It's his way of emphasizing one solid, tight thrust of attack with support, as opposed to every unit doing what they want to do.

Ailaros wrote:The problem with this is that there is no fog of war in 40k. If you have three huge units of genestealers, I know in advance that you're going to be outflanking with three huge units of genestealers. Likewise, I can always see everything on the board in perfect detail. There is no way that you can catch your opponent off guard in 40k like you can in the real world.

I mean, I guess your opponent can underestimate things they haven't had first-hand experience with, but that works like once. Nobody forgets an al'rahem outflank or a combi-melta sternguard in a drop pod once they see it once.

analogies to chess and other games of strategy with no fow are probably more useful in general.
often times assaults and close-range fire fights play out like exchanges of pieces in chess. units tend to wipe, and get wiped in return, unless, as in chess, you can achieve overwhelming local superiority. The tactics are alot simpler and direct in 40k but the principle still holds.

jbunny wrote:3 wars that were directed by politicans and not Generals.

And the art of war warns that generals must remain free to conduct the war without interference.

labmouse42 wrote:Honestly a lot of Sun Tsu's teachings don't apply to a minature game. Take the following example.

Corrupt his morals by insidious gifts leading him into excess. Disturb and unsettle his mind by presenting him with lovely women.

Well, ok, maybe that's not such a bad idea. Its a shame that most players don't have an abundance of lovely women they can throw at their 40k opponent.

har har, sun tsu means bait him and then counter attack.

people need to stop taking an idea down to the word and then say suntsu is over-rated *cough joey

schadenfreude wrote:

jbunny wrote:3 wars that were directed by politicans and not Generals.

And the art of war warns that generals must remain free to conduct the war without interference.

I agree, I was just pointing out that the reason for those "losses" was not the generals, but rather the people in Washington.

Not sure if its a quote or paraphrasing, I had it written in my book after a lecture on the C-man (Clausewitz). 'the play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam' is on of his 3 aspects of war. And suits this well. Not as an actual strategy, but more as how you can look at the game. A game of chance and probability in which the creative spirit (me!) is free to roam. Like a sheep or duck. That last bit isn't Clausewitz.

Blitzkreig tatics i have found help when playing mech forces

Some good points I've seen so far:

- Sun Tsu talked more strategy than tactics, but strategy goes just as far as tactics to win a battle.
- The nature of 40K takes much of the deception from Sun Tsu out of the picture
- Know your army, know your opponents army
- Have a battle plan that can adapt to unforeseen events

Something I haven't seen before is Sun Tsu's focus on choosing the terrain of the battlefield. I won't try to direct quote because I won't get it right, but he stressed the importance of choosing the terrain to suit your army. This translates perfectly into 40K. Guard and other shooty armies need open maps with open fire lanes so they can set up kill zones. On the other hand assault armies need a lot of cover and breaks in LOS so they can close in to assault closely. Unlike real life where you are limited by what terrain you can march an army to, 40K let's you have a hand in creating the terrain. This is advice that I've really taken to heart in many ways.

Avatar 720 wrote:In order to function as a successful distraction, some attacking must be done, otherwise the bait will not be fully taken. If you just hang back and do nothing, it won't work effectively.

Good point. Reminds me of the Allies using Patton as a decoy early in the Normandy campaign during WW2. They set up a fake army in England and trumped up radio traffic and paraded Patton around the area. They had Hitler so convinced that another army would make a true invasion near Calais that Hitler refused to let Rommel move entire divisions to reinforce the fighting in Normandy, preventing counter-attacks that possibly could have pushed the Allies back into the sea. from the allies perspective Patton was the decoy. From Hitler's perspective, who believed Normandy was a decoy, was even more convinced because of the resources dedicated to the invasion. Coupled with some deception, he believed an invasion was coming until it was far too late to pull a victory out of the Normandy campaign. While the deception part is hard to include in 40K, the general idea holds water: dangle a convincing, but false, show of force to convince the enemy you plan to attack Point A, then attack Point B. If it works you'll at least make your opponent hesitate. If you're lucky, they'll be so convinced you're still planning to attack Point A that they won't release they've been had until it's too late.

To be honest, Winston Churchill has probably at least pushed how I play my game to some extent, and I usually try to change up when things don't work out like I had hoped, even with rolls in mind.


"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. "

That being said, I grew up on Fire Emblem and various TBS games including Risk, and to be honest, I think it's fair to say that while I've had influences, I've developed tactics of my own. It does bother me though when a lot of people claim that they follow exactly whatever historical figure they can google quickly and then quickly insert a quote. I'm not trying to knock anybody, but chances are that instead of emulating a brilliant leader from the past, they're more likely to adapt to how the game progresses.

Also, I've tried a sort of 40k parallel to the Schlieffen Plan. Interestingly enough, it worked, took out a swarmlord pretty handily (he's a pretty strange metaphor for Belgium, come to think of it), it essentially it allowed me passage into his lines, although I made some mistakes later on, and ended up tying the game. To be honest, if anything, I'll use the quote earlier in this post as my great, ominous quote of strategy, but if anything I might attempt similar wartime plans in-game, to an extent.

...Atlas out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, another reason why I quote Churchill:

I've made up plans for games before, and while they sound awesome on paper, sometimes all it takes is forgetting to account for the risk factor. I was pretty viciously beaten in kill points, my first loss so far in that mission type, and with a plan that I thought for sure would rack up kill points. While it very well could have, I ended up getting my ass handed to me because I didn't consider the opponent would be preparing an unorthodox, unusual but successful anti-BA list.

While he is not a famous general or any other sort of military figure, Kelly Johnson (lead engineer of Lockheed's Skunkworks) came up with (imo) the best advice anyone can ever be given for any situation: Keep. It. Simple. Stupid!

The simpler the plan, the less likely it is to fail by the mere fact that there's less things that could go wrong.

The big thing to keep in mind is that Sun Tsu teaches how to win a War, but wargaming is a series of battles. You fight the 2 very differently. Plus with warhammer you can't really think to far outside the box. You can't apply tactics such as making your enemy face the sun when you attack, or luring them into brush soaked with oil and lighting it on fire.

My best advice to win at Warhammer is to play the terrain to your advantage.

King Crow wrote:The big thing to keep in mind is that Sun Tsu teaches how to win a War, but wargaming is a series of battles. You fight the 2 very differently.

I agree. How much differently would 40K (and fantasy) would be played if the casualties from the battle were not available in the next one? Pyrrhus said "One more victory will utterly undo me", and I think this sums it up pretty neatly.

Even though I have the Clausewitz quote in my sig (I put it in there during 4th edition when it was more true of 40K and I'm just too lazy to change it out), 5th edition is more about Moltke.

Especially because Moltke was the first to perceive that, in early 19th century warfare, artillery and breechloading longarms made defensive fighting much stronger than offensive fighting. Because an attacking force has to move, which means they can't shoot effectively, whereas the defending force can just sit and fire continuously, he saw correctly that you needed a 2-1 or 3-1 numerical superiority in numbers to be able to successfully attack a static defensive position.

So Moltke's tactical solution was to attack by setting up defensive positions in places where the enemy couldn't just bypass them. Force the enemy to attack your strong defensive position at a disadvantage.

Since 40K, like early 19th century warfare, has the same dynamic of either move or shoot, (and because in 5th edition, shooting is more effective than assault) Moltke's tactics work similarly--with transport vehicles taking the role of defensive fortifications.

Sun Tzu did say something like

"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself."

Which does make sense- if you don't know what your own army is capable of, you can't win, if you don't know what your enemy is capable of, you're at a disadvantage, but if you know both then you can play well.

Another one was

"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won," which sums up the Alpha Legion for me.

For the record it is spelled Sun Tzu But I have read the "Art of War" and I try to follow its doctrines when I play. In all honesty I should probably reread it with the intention of using it for 40k...because well I read it for pleasure.

I dont know the quote or who said it, but somewhere, someone said something about victory being achieved the moment you can get in your opponents head.

If you know exactly what to say at the start of a game, or what not to say, and when, you've already won.

Sometimes I talk up my toughest units, saying how much I love them or how they never die, and when the enemy targets them with the brunt of their firepower, my glass cannons move in.

In the same way, I've scarred players (nicely) into not charging full throttle at me, knowing full well they would easily wipe me out. A tyranid army advancing cautiously from cover to cover towards the guns of my guard is always a satisfying sight

I pull my tactics from three places:

Starcraft
-Getting a good "concave" to maximize the amount of units you have firing while minimizing the amount of units your opponents have firing
-Staying in formation, not so much a Protoss deathball, but in formation nontheless to prevent your stray units from getting picked off at no cost to the enemy. Kind of goes along with the first principle

Chess
-Plan ahead. Then based on those plans, make future plans. Then when your opponent moves (hopefully in the way that you planned for), change all your plans to match that if you planned wrong.
-Using your forces for controlling area. Similar to the controlling the middle ground of chess. Each 40k unit has a threat radius. Concentrate your threat radii.

Magic: The Gathering
-If something has a CMC of 5 or greater, it better win you the game. Basically if you've invested lots of points in something, it must be game breaking like Draigo, Paladins, TH/SS terminators, etc. Something cute won't cut it.
-Combo strategies only work with simplistic combos and redundancy. 2-3 card combos with different cards being able to function as the same combo piece are really the only way to make it work. Doing intricate 40k strategies are more along the lines of "cute," but doing something like Shrike and TH/SS Terminators is simple, effective, the units are good on their own, and difficult to stop.
-Focus on the goals, and don't be afraid to expend your resources. If you win the game at 4 life, you won the game.

curran12 wrote:I prefer Moltke.

"No plan survives contact with the enemy."

That's because Moltke was an idiot who didn't understand the Schlieffen Plan and did exactly what he shouldn't have done, leading to four years of stalemate in trenches. Of course, a Clausewitzian approach to the whole thing, from both sides, didn't help either.

Here are some of my favourite quotes:

"War is an art and as such is not susceptible of explanation by fixed formula"
- General George Patton Jr

It doesn't matter how many threads on tactics you read, either you'll get it, or you won't. There is no one rule that applies at all times, so be flexible. And have an army that allows you to be flexible.


"Fools say that they learn by experience. I prefer to profit by others experience"
- Otto Von Bismarck

Still, reading battle reports is worth it. Watching good players play is worth it.

"The general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose. "
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Mathhammer isn't dumb.


"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

The time for discussion of your opponent's moves is after the game, not during it.


"Players win games, teams win championships."
- Bill Taylor

When making your army list, don't concentrate on what units are best, concentrate on what units work best with what other units. Look for synergies before raw power, and the whole will be stronger.

"Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter."
- Winston Churchill

Paying points for the ability to maneuver is almost always a good idea. Being able to pick where engagements will happen has value.


"Find the enemy and shoot him down. Anything else is nonsense"
- Captain Manfred von Richthofen ("The Red Baron"), 1917

On the other hand, shut up and roll the dice


"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."
- Rear adm. Grace Murray Hopper

Don't deploy so defensively that your units don't affect the game.


"The best luck of all is the luck you make for yourself."
- General Douglas MacArthur

Know how to create engagements that favour you.

"Take calculated risks."
- General George S. Patton, Jr

Know the odds of success/failure when deciding what to do. And don't do things with high risk of failure.

"An army should always be so distributed that its parts can aid each other and combine to produce the maximum possible concentration of force at one place, while the minimum force necessary is used elsewhere to prepare the success of the concentration.
- Sir Basil H. Liddel-Hart

For all the talk that Sun Tsu and Clausewitz get, I think that Liddel-Hart is probably a better read than either of them, especially in regards to strategy (less tactics) in the modern world. While perhaps not as quotable, I highly recommend his books to anyone interested in military history and strategy.


"If your sword is too short, take one step forward"
- Admiral Marquis Heihachiro Togo

Pay attention to ranges. Advance only as far as you need to start taking shots on your opponent. There's no need to take two steps forward and expose yourself to additional threats.

"If you entrench yourself behind strong fortifications, you compel the enemy seek a solution elsewhere."
- Karl von Clausewitz

I'm usually not a fan of Clausewitz, though this may be because of how his works were misinterpreted by others. But this one, seemingly missed by everyone during WWI, is about as true as it gets. You can deploy as defensively as you want. But, if you do so, a smart opponent will simply not engage you on your terms and will force the game's decision somewhere else. By being too defensive, you invite a game prone to draws and inaction (at best) or loss without action (at worst).

"Frederick [the Great of Prussia] liked to say that three men behind the enemy were worth fifty in front of him."
- Colonel Ardant du Picq

Don't be afraid to deep strike boldly, as it can throw your opponent off-balance out of proportion to what you've invested in the move.

"Nothing is so exhilarating in life as to be shot at with no result."
- Winston Churchill

Sometimes, your opponent will roll ones. Sometimes you will too...

"In war, only the simple succeeds."
-Field Marshal Paul Von Hindenburg

Don't bother planning too many turns ahead, there are a lot of dice to roll. Focus on what you can do now.

"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
- General George Patton Jr

Patton summarizes Clausewitz's earlier quote.

"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it."
- Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Play orks, it's easier


"Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."
- Margareth Thatcher

People who feel the need to talk about how awesome their army is are usually wrong.

"A bold general may be lucky, but no general can be lucky unless he is bold."
- Field Marshal Archibald Percival Wavell

If you don't roll the dice, they can't possibly hit.

"Strategy is the art of making use of time and space. I am less concerned about the later than the former. Space we can recover, lost time never."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

Don't forget that the game ends on turn 5...

"Winning is not a sometime thing; its an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit."
- Vince Lombardi

Don't settle into sloppy habits when you think they don't matter. Do it right all the time, even in casual games. Learn the rules, and apply them correctly, even in casual games, because it will pay off when you're playing more competitively.

i remember this simple satement from a great philospher: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
this is why orks should not be allowed to used tactics and instead should always have to take the most driect route to the enemy

Though I don't go with direct quotes, and I have (sadly) not read much more than Machiavelli's Art of War (which deals mostly with Roman formations) I'll have to put in my own pithy statements.

Take the center, and hold it. I don't worry, early on, about flanks or getting in the backfield- but I do like to have control of the center of the board. By definition, it is the closest location to everything else compared to anywhere else. If I have the center, I can target anything in the full 360 degrees around me, making it harder for my opponent to avoid being shot or assaulted when I wish to do so.

Armour is never wasted.

I keep my Battlewagons Closed-topped, and have a large unit of 'ard Boyz. Aside from the Tankbustas I always run, no unit in my army is protected by less than a 4+ save. Every saved wound is another 2 attacks back, another chance to win the game. Every time I ignore a result of vehicle damage, I keep that much more of my force effective.

Play mind games.

I run Tankbustas, and Flash Gits. I have a Battlewagon with a Killkannon and 4 Rokkits. I play unlike any other Orks I've ever seen, so what works on other Orks doesn't work on me. I use my Tankbustas agressively- I once was able to hold a Landraider up an entire game simply by deploying my Bustas across from it, and despite never getting a single result higher than a 1, I kept about 400-500 points out of the game for the price of around 150.

My Flash Gits draw an incredible amount of fire, simply because the enemy doesn't know what they'll end up doing. Deffdreads do the same, except in that case, it's because the enemy knows exactly what they'll do.

riverhawks32 wrote:For the record it is spelled Sun Tzu

Both spellings are correct. They're the Latinized representation of the pronunciation. Mandarin is a complicated language that is hard to romanize. For example, "fong" and "feng" should be one and the same (the "vowel" sound is somewhere between o and e), and so is "jian" and "chien".

Yeah Sun Tzu (here we also say Sun Tsu or even Sunzi...) and his comrade tacticians shouldnt be taken literally. At least not in 40k. They should be transferred and used for your own good. Then they are valuable advisors.

@Ailaros

Of course you can deceive your opponents. Not so well with units, but with the way you play them. You could also say you have to outwit your opponent.
As hybrid guard player I played once vs. mass-orks (1750p). 150 boyz I think. Should result in total annihilation of mine. Fortunately the opponent forgot to space properly so having one Manticore he could count the dead from turn 1 on. But what I also did was pretending a mistake. I outflanked a penal legion squad just outside 12" deploying them as careless as possible pretending them not to be important for me and focussing on another part of the table quickly.
The result was him being greedy and have a waaagh on turn 2 just to get his boys in with the squad. The result was an exchange of 30 boyz and 10 men. But even worse it opened his flank and I could move my army into the gap. The rest was slaughter. I think I lost 2 or 3 units and nearly wiped him out.

@redbeard

That's because Moltke was an idiot who didn't understand the Schlieffen Plan and did exactly what he shouldn't have done, leading to four years of stalemate in trenches.

The Schlieffenplan didnt work anyways because of the British. If there were only the French we had a german victory in WW1. But Germany didnt have a good position to wage war being in the middle of Europe in contact with many possible enemies with almost no natural borders...
In WW2 it worked better (Basically the same idea). Although still there were too many forces tied up against russia.

But still it is true. Moltke acted like an unexperienced General. But the main failures were: 1. That the austrians attacked a nation with overwhelming support from allies, 2. Helping them at all...

@topic

An example for a good reference is also the 3:1 force balance necessary to attack a position. 1. The enemy is fortified most of the time, so he is in cover, you are not. 2. You are advancing, the enemy already has a good position. 3. You must wipe the enemy out of his position (rout him or kill him) otherwise the attack was unsuccessful. So after 1 or 2 rounds of advancing you still have to outmatch the enemy in a way that you quickly drive him out there. The second benefit is, that you have more material to repel a counter atack when you attacked with more force.

This leads to my main quote: "If you defend everywhere, you defend nowhere." (Fredrick the Great) Transfer: Dont try to save all of your army above everything. Then it will result in you saving no part of your army at all. Or in other words: Make maximal use of local superiority.

My strengths as a general are: discipline under pressure, a bit psychological warfare, creative ideas
My weaknesses are: Laziness when not under pressure, too disciplined in maintaining the initial plan

So I will be defeated if an opponent makes me think I have won and I shine against overconfident opponents.

This may be paraphrased juuuuuuuust a little bit:

"Pick Grey Knights and you will win every time"
-Unkown

XD

-Nazdreg- wrote:
@redbeard

That's because Moltke was an idiot who didn't understand the Schlieffen Plan and did exactly what he shouldn't have done, leading to four years of stalemate in trenches.

The Schlieffenplan didnt work anyways because of the British. If there were only the French we had a german victory in WW1. But Germany didnt have a good position to wage war being in the middle of Europe in contact with many possible enemies with almost no natural borders...

Moltke weakened the German right flank, crucially, instead of accepting the minor, temporary setbacks in the center of the western front and on the eastern front. The Schlieffenplan predicted these loses, but demanded that the right flank be given priority in spite of them, because knocking out Paris was crucial. Moltke paniced when faced with the predicted loses, and transfered divisions from the right flank to both the center and to the eastern front, the exact thing Schlieffen warned against doing. And that right flank got within 30ish miles of Paris even so weakened.

The British had very few divisions in France at the beginning of the war, and these were rather quickly put on the defensive around Mons, as they were forced to retreat. Their presence at that time made no significant difference. Moltke lost the war by abandoning the plan. There's really not that much more to it.

zeekill wrote:This may be paraphrased juuuuuuuust a little bit:

"Pick Grey Knights and you will win every time"
-Unkown

Unkown? Almost spelled like the name of this Korean guy I know. Anyway, whoever this 'Unkown' is, I have proved him wrong many many times.

'tis only a joke, is all.

Titan Atlas wrote:'tis only a joke, is all.

I know. Most of my post was making a "joke" about his typo.

Redbeard wrote:That's because Moltke was an idiot who didn't understand the Schlieffen Plan and did exactly what he shouldn't have done

So, just a quick point of order - there were two Moltke's. I think the quotes were being taken by the older one, while it was the younger one that led the German armies. Perhaps if the younger had taken advice of the older...

Flavius Infernus wrote: because in 5th edition, shooting is more effective than assault

I find this a really interesting point of view, given that shooting got nothing, and assaulting got 4+ cover, cover from intervening units, the ability to run, a quick and brutal combat resolution system, the ability to hit vehicles on rear armor (armor also having gotten better against shooting), and the ability to outflank. And that's before they got cheaper transports to get them into close combat, and various codecies got pro-assault goodies like stubborn for guard, KFF for orks, heroic intervention for space marines, etc. That they lost the ability to consolidate into another close combat is small peas compared to what assault gained in this edition.

@Ailaros

Signed. Assault is definitely deadlier than shooting. But shooting is also very important. You wont get into assault from turn 1 on, so you need some damage earlier and with shooting you can "adjust" the size and power of your waiting assault victim to your purposes.

But I have to admit that flamer weaponry got much better because they are resolved at the same time. This is why 4 flamers in a unit is better than 4x1 flamer.

Ailaros wrote:[

Flavius Infernus wrote: because in 5th edition, shooting is more effective than assault

I find this a really interesting point of view, given that shooting got nothing, and assaulting got 4+ cover, cover from intervening units, the ability to run, a quick and brutal combat resolution system, the ability to hit vehicles on rear armor (armor also having gotten better against shooting), and the ability to outflank. And that's before they got cheaper transports to get them into close combat, and various codecies got pro-assault goodies like stubborn for guard, KFF for orks, heroic intervention for space marines, etc. That they lost the ability to consolidate into another close combat is small peas compared to what assault gained in this edition.

I'm not sure that the number of changes from 4th edition is a criterion I'd use to evaluate the effectiveness of shooting in 5th. Just because it changed more or less doesn't necessarily mean that it's now better or worse.

I'm basing my conclusion on the fact that in 5th edition you can build a pure shooting army with no assault capability whatsoever and still do really well and win games. All but one of my 5th edition armies are pure shooting, designed to crumble whenever something is charged, and I never have any problem winning games against assault-based armies.

Joe Mama wrote:

zeekill wrote:This may be paraphrased juuuuuuuust a little bit:

"Pick Grey Knights and you will win every time"
-Unkown

Unkown? Almost spelled like the name of this Korean guy I know. Anyway, whoever this 'Unkown' is, I have proved him wrong many many times.

haha didn't notice the typo

But in all seriousness they must either be bad players or running bad GK lists

Or you're just godly

Flavius Infernus wrote:I'm basing my conclusion on the fact that in 5th edition you can build a pure shooting army with no assault capability whatsoever and still do really well and win games. All but one of my 5th edition armies are pure shooting, designed to crumble whenever something is charged, and I never have any problem winning games against assault-based armies.

You know, perhaps that's really the strength of this rules edition. Just as you've been able to do just fine with a nearly totally shooty army without serious problems, so have I been able to run nearly totally assaulty armies with likewise not too much hassle. I suppose that's true of other things in 5th ed too. Like the rules for transports were rewritten in such a way where it was actually possible to run mech lists, rather than having a parking lot full of coffins. Perhaps it's just enough of a better game than 4th.

Anyways, thinking to the original idea, the biggest reason that most strategic thinkers don't have much bearing on 40k is because of circumstances. Moltke had to deal with a world in which charging a fortified position was pure suicide, Von Clausewitz lived with the fact that armies were as slow as molasses, and Hallsey lived in an environment with a ocean-sized fog of war. I suppose this means that, in a similar way, strategists over the ages are more or less useful to other strategists, in the real or board game world, because the abstracts that people talk about are described in a certain set of circumstances and are re-gleaned into new circumstances.

We do have people like Macharius to quote, though. Check out any of the quotes pages at Lexicanum for a stock of 40k-relevant wisdom to bring up.

"Your foe is well-trained, well-armed, and battle-hardened. He believes the gods are on his side. Let him believe what he will. We have the tanks on ours."

zeekill wrote:But in all seriousness they must either be bad players or running bad GK lists

Or you're just godly

Eh? I'm the one that has used a GK army and lost! I am a good player running a good list, and I am a demi-god (my father is Zeus' cousin, Yanni). And still, I lose here and there.

"The best form of defense is attack."
- Karl von Clausewitz

AKA The best defense is a good offense.

Never sit on the defense! Attack!

Which brings me to Napoleon Bonaparte. I am actually related to this man believe it or not (alright fine, I'm actually related to his second wife Joaphine but that's a matter of semantics)

"L'attaque, L'attaque, toujours L'attaque!"

Never stop moving forward with your guardsmen. I've thrown off CC players by charging them with my new blob guard lists. Awesome.

This is strategy.

First, you have a goal. Then, you list objectives in support of that goal, in order of importance. Then, you weigh the costs and accomplish the most you can, however you can. Without even fighting, if possible!

You've got bluff, subterfuge, diplomacy...lotta the time it's just 'watch what the enemy's doing, and hit him where he's weak and you're strong.'

But, y'know...he's doing the same to you. And you can't be everywhere. So you fall back where he's stronger, and sometimes you do lose. But you roll with it.

Yes, you plan. Okay? But the enemy won't follow your plan.

So the trick is to be fluid, hit him on the fly, define his choices...watch for opportunity, like when he boops up.

You have to know more than he does about what's going on. Erfworld

heartserenade wrote:

riverhawks32 wrote:For the record it is spelled Sun Tzu

Both spellings are correct. They're the Latinized representation of the pronunciation. Mandarin is a complicated language that is hard to romanize. For example, "fong" and "feng" should be one and the same (the "vowel" sound is somewhere between o and e), and so is "jian" and "chien".

I did not know that! Learn something new everyday.

From a Chaos player's perspective it really seems that man imitates the Glory that is Chaos...

"In strife and conflict I beseiged [and] conquered the city. I felled 3,000 of their fighting men with the sword... I captured many troops alive: I cut off some of their arms [and] hands; I cut off of others their noses, ears, [and] extremities. I gouged out the eyes of many troops. I made one pile of living [and] one of heads. I hung their heads on trees around the city.
-Ashurnasipal II, Assyrian King and possible champion of Khorne.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
-Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States of America and apparently a disciple of Slaanesh

"...[I] got burned once but that was only gonnorhea..."
-Russell Jones, definietely a scion of Nurgle and all around cool guy

"All warfare is based on deception."
-Sun Tzu, a.k.a. Tzeentch, the Changer of Ways

Sorry if any of these quotes were posted already, I'm hastily posting this from someone else's cubicle.

Great people from history inspire me in every way, right down to my toy soldiers (bloodthirsty mutant Assyrian renegade guard ). As a German (well, Canadian of German descent, whatever), I base my tactical doctrine on the great Arminius: fight the enemy on your own terms; dictate when, where, and how combat takes place.

My quote which I forgot where I got it or who done said it. "fear grips the weak hearted, and rage grips the blood thirsty. Play neither side of a coward or a barbarian; war is a gentalmens game and is to be played with every dirty trick of the book, but smile and be polite."

I always play orks an guard. I make space wolves and blood angels cry fighting me because they expect something simple like a Ig Parkin lot or a ork kan wall the standard meta. But what they don't see is a flight of the Valkyries and ork gun line. Seems to get them all the time at my local store.

A good quote I like from boxing. "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". Mike Tyson.
It is a lot like "no plan survives contact with the enemy".

Redbeard wrote:

-Nazdreg- wrote:
@redbeard

That's because Moltke was an idiot who didn't understand the Schlieffen Plan and did exactly what he shouldn't have done, leading to four years of stalemate in trenches.

The Schlieffenplan didnt work anyways because of the British. If there were only the French we had a german victory in WW1. But Germany didnt have a good position to wage war being in the middle of Europe in contact with many possible enemies with almost no natural borders...

Moltke weakened the German right flank, crucially, instead of accepting the minor, temporary setbacks in the center of the western front and on the eastern front. The Schlieffenplan predicted these loses, but demanded that the right flank be given priority in spite of them, because knocking out Paris was crucial. Moltke paniced when faced with the predicted loses, and transfered divisions from the right flank to both the center and to the eastern front, the exact thing Schlieffen warned against doing. And that right flank got within 30ish miles of Paris even so weakened.

The British had very few divisions in France at the beginning of the war, and these were rather quickly put on the defensive around Mons, as they were forced to retreat. Their presence at that time made no significant difference. Moltke lost the war by abandoning the plan. There's really not that much more to it.

The Schlieffen plan both failed to predict the speed of the russian mobilisation and the considerable strategical mobility of the french army as well as the logistical difficulties of actualy getting the required amount of troops into position. To solely blame Moltke ( who, from his perspective, had vallid reasons to act as he did ) when the original plan had glaring weaknesses is not just.

And let's be clear that we're talking about Moltke the Younger with the Schlieffen plan.

The majority of quotes and strategies cited in this thread come from his uncle, Moltke the Elder, the brilliant 19th century strategist .

All previous quotes and interpretations are irrelevant for the orks. The following quotes from the mob known as "Da Big Red Wun", however, are.
"Sneakiness is Unorky, but kommandoz kill a lot more gitz wif it."
Da White Deff. Infiltration helps you kill stuff.
"MORE DAKKA! DAT WAY WE KAN KILL 'EM WHEN WE KAN'T CRUMP'EM!"
Sarge Reeko. This guy Dual wields shotguns that shoot choppashot; he KNOWS what he's talking about.
"Don't put da fort on da ground, ya blu gitz! Put it on dat wagon!"
Boss Sun Zoo. Camping is for tau. This is how the battle fortress was born.
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGHH!"
orks
"SWEET MERCIFUL FRAK! WHERE DID THAT GROT COME FROM?"
unfortunate [insert enemy here]. Big meks. And tanks.

"Speed is the essence of war"
-Sun Tzu
"Retain the freedom to Maneuver"
-One of the Six Fundementals of Recon. FM 3-90. Reconnaissance Operations.
(Remain on the move. A moving target is hard to hit and hard to predict, both in affecting dice rolls in CC and my taking advantage of cover.)

"If you know yourself and know your enemy, your victory will not stand in doubt. If you know Heaven, you know Earth. You may make your victory."
-Sun Tzu
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
-George Patton
(Read other armybooks for inspiration. Build lists using those armies. How would YOU play them? How would you defend yourself? What are the most vital parts of any strategy in those books?)

"Pretend inferiority and encourage your enemy's arrogance."
-Sun Tzu
("Oops! I didn't mean to move there..." Bait works in 40k. The human on the other side of the table is as much a piece on the board as a Landraider or Termagant. Play them. "No competant general would ever fall for that!" You say, yet people make mistakes. I have noted that often times the course of a tournament is decided by the man who can most withstand the rigors of a tournament. That final game can be won by an inferior player if the better man is exhausted/thinking about dinner/needing to worry about his ride, etc. I have won games by freaking out about the power level of a unit and running from it. My opponant gave chase. I casually capped the objective they were camping. And then charged him with Incubi.)

"The enemy's gate is down."
-Ender the Xenocide
"According to what one of the elders said, taking an enemy on the battlefield is like a hawk taking a bird. Even though it enters into the midst of a thousand of them, it gives no attention to any bird other than the one it first marked."
-Yamamoto Tsunetomo, The Hagakure
(NEVER forget your objectives. Not only in the d3+2 sense, but also the objectives of a turn or the game as a whole. If your objective is "Kill the guy with the flag!" never lose sight of it. If the objective is "Kill whatever will do the most amount of damage in the least amount of time" then focus on that, then figure out what you can do with what remains.


"Among the maxims on Lord Naoshige's wall, there was this one: "Matters of great concern should be treated lightly." Master Ittei commented, "Matters of small concern should be treated seriously.""
-Yamamoto Tsunetomo
(You should have thought before the game long and hard about how to kill your opponants most dangerous units. When the time comes to destroy them, you should already know what to do. Therefore it appears that you have treated very lightly the matter of dismantling your opponant's offense. Once you have succeeded, you may find you don't know what to do next. Time to play your game to perfection. Think long and hard about what to do next. The game is won, nothing else matters. Which small, out of the way unit to kill first will require more battlefield thought than the initial win did.)

"When the enemy finds itself in a predicament and wants to engage us in a decisive battle, wait; when it is adventageous for the enemy but not for us to fight, wait; when it is expedient to remain still and whoever moves first will fall into danger, wait; when two enemies are engaged in a fight that will result in defeat or injury, wait; when the enemy forces, though numerous suffer from mistrust and tend to plot against one another, wait; when the enemy commander, though wise, is handicapped by some of his cohorts, wait."
-The Wiles of War translated by Sun Haichen
(Aggression does not mean charging headlong into the mouth of the enemy's guns. Contrary to my regular opponant and best friend, patience is itself a potent skill and powerful strategy.)

"A rapid, powerful transition to the attack - the glinting sword of vengeance - is the most brilliant moment of the defense."
-Von Clausewitz
"The whole art of war consists in a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive, followed by a rapid and audacious attack."
-Napoleon Bonaparte

"Thus the army... moves for advantage, and changes through segmenting and reuniting. Thus its speed is like the wind, its slowness like the forest; its invasion and plundering like a fire... It is as difficult to know as the darkness; in movement it is like thunder."
-Sun Tzu
"Separate to live, unite to fight."
-Napoleon Bonaparte
"Make the Enemy believe that support is lacking;... cut off, flank, turn, in a thousand ways make his men believe themselves isolated. Isolate in like manner his squadrons, battalions, brigades, and divisions; and victory is yours"
-Col Ardant du Picq
"It is by turning the enemy, by attacking his flank, that battles are won."
-Napoleon Bonaparte
(With long range units and units that are manuverable, you can fragment your forces to different areas feigning confusion and lack of focus, then bring them together when the time is right to strike.)

I play primarily Tau, Dark Eldar, and Dark Elves. All of these quotes have shaped the way in which I play and allow me to play to the strengths of those armies. They are not quotes merely for long term strategies, but do well for the tabletop also. I'm sure Dashofpepper or Thor of Dark Eldar fame will recognize some of these quotes as their approach to the army reflects these words.

Warboss Brokentoof wrote:A good quote I like from boxing. "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". Mike Tyson.
It is a lot like "no plan survives contact with the enemy".

There's an elegance to the Tyson quote that I quite appreciate. Not only does it address the need to be ready to adjust to changing circumstances, it proclaims that you, as a competitor, do have the means to force your opponent to re-assess his carefully laid schemes with proper violence of action.

"Nothing ruins a Pick and Roll like flattening the pick."
-my college lacrosse coach

Aggressively attack the pivot point of a plan, destroy it, and the plan falls apart. I've found, more than anywhere else, that this is true with Tyranids. Take the 40mm bases off the table, and the army comes apart at the seams. Whether it is murdering the hive guard that are the only real threat to your light armor, killing the hive warriors that are screening the Tervigons, gunning down the Raveners that were going to hit your skirmish line to funnel your movement, or killing the Venomthropes that would otherwise prevent you from wading in and murdering termagants like it's cool, the army can't function without them.

I try to use all these quotes and strategies on the tabletop, am I the only one that has a problem actually executing the theory? I mean its all good to converse here about it, but honestly I have no idea how to keep it all straight and remember to use it to my advantage in a game

riverhawks32 wrote:I try to use all these quotes and strategies on the tabletop, am I the only one that has a problem actually executing the theory? I mean its all good to converse here about it, but honestly I have no idea how to keep it all straight and remember to use it to my advantage in a game

For example-

Nagashek wrote:"Speed is the essence of war"
-Sun Tzu

Now Sun Tzu hasn't said that more speed is good. He hasn't said less speed is good. Or bad either. He said that Speed is the essence of war. If I had more time I'd get into it, but- think of an ambush. The ambushers are lying in wait for the unsuspecting enemy. The essence of whats going on, or to word it a bit better essentially what is happening is the ambushers are putting the enemy into a situation where they have very little time to react. If they reduce the time the enemy has to react, the enemy has to react faster, with more speed if you will, to escape the situation or turn the table and take the battle to the ambushers. So flexibility and fast reactive and analytical skills will be of great assistance in an ambush situation.

Now this is on one scale of warfare. Take the war from the generals perspective, and I'm pretty sure we all know that hesitation can be death in warfare, and swift decisions made when an opening or weakness becomes apparent can win wars/battles. Sun Tzu in saying "Speed is the essence of war", is not advocating something like more speed, yeah? He's saying exactly what he said- speed is the essence of warfare.

"When caught by surprise, turn and attack with maximum aggression."

Don't think it's been said by any one particular person in history, it's just an observation of behaviour by wild animals (Elephants in particular) that I've found to be useful when everything goes a bit pear-shaped.

I believe it's a tactic used by real-life armies when caught in an ambush (according to Ex-SAS Chris Ryan).

Definitely something to think about..thanks!

Joey wrote:Sun Tsu is over-rated. I much prefer Van Clauswitz.

Weeeell, yes and no. Much of Sun Tsu, as already stated, is about over-arching principles. About how to actually win rather than just how to beat his soldiers. As such only a handful of his principles are really applicable to tabletop wargaming.

One I recite to myself a fair bit, I actually got from the seven samurai. Something about every castle needing a weak point or a breach.

notabot187 wrote:Good balanced lists in 40k shouldn't really have a "capital" unit. This is because any idiot can realize that "hey, if I kill that unit then he has nothing of consequence." A balanced list is more like, :"what do I shoot at, the units are all pretty equally dangerous to me".

It depends, really. A proper deathstar unit can be a real game-changer.

LunaHound wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:Honestly a lot of Sun Tsu's teachings don't apply to a minature game. Take the following example.

Corrupt his morals by insidious gifts leading him into excess. Disturb and unsettle his mind by presenting him with lovely women.

Well, ok, maybe that's not such a bad idea. Its a shame that most players don't have an abundance of lovely women they can throw at their 40k opponent.

har har, sun tsu means bait him and then counter attack.

people need to stop taking an idea down to the word and then say suntsu is over-rated *cough joey

lolwhut? In the quoted text, Sun Tsu is actually making reference to distracting the enemy general with real women. Send him heaps of courtesans, make him fall in love, break his heart, get him so horny he can't think straight. He's not talking about actual tactics there, but a strategy by which to render an enemy or potential enemy helpless.

Redbeard wrote:"If you entrench yourself behind strong fortifications, you compel the enemy seek a solution elsewhere."
- Karl von Clausewitz

I'm usually not a fan of Clausewitz, though this may be because of how his works were misinterpreted by others. But this one, seemingly missed by everyone during WWI, is about as true as it gets. You can deploy as defensively as you want. But, if you do so, a smart opponent will simply not engage you on your terms and will force the game's decision somewhere else. By being too defensive, you invite a game prone to draws and inaction (at best) or loss without action (at worst).

I think that ties into the seven samurai theme nicely. Any strong defensive position must have a weak point to let the enemy attack, or else they will avoid it entirely.

Kaldor wrote:Much of Sun Tsu, as already stated, is about over-arching principles. About how to actually win rather than just how to beat his soldiers. As such only a handful of his principles are really applicable to tabletop wargaming.

Right, it's a matter of scope. Sun Tsu is how a nation wins a war. 40k is a game about a small part of a single battle. The whole chapter on use of spies, for example, or on types of terrain really doesn't have anything to say once a battle has already started. It's the art of war, not the art of local fire superiority.

Kaldor wrote:

Redbeard wrote:"If you entrench yourself behind strong fortifications, you compel the enemy seek a solution elsewhere."
- Karl von Clausewitz

I'm usually not a fan of Clausewitz, though this may be because of how his works were misinterpreted by others. But this one, seemingly missed by everyone during WWI, is about as true as it gets. You can deploy as defensively as you want. But, if you do so, a smart opponent will simply not engage you on your terms and will force the game's decision somewhere else. By being too defensive, you invite a game prone to draws and inaction (at best) or loss without action (at worst).

I think that ties into the seven samurai theme nicely. Any strong defensive position must have a weak point to let the enemy attack, or else they will avoid it entirely.

The problem is that this is also out of scope of 40k. 40k is played in a really tiny space over a very limited time frame. Von Clausewitz is talking at an operational level here, not at a tactical one. At this level, 40k has all the nuance of risk - both players wad up their armies into balls and smash them into each other.

I mean, if my opponent keeps his army cohesive and on objectives, then I have no choice but to either not attack or to attack in force at the point of my opponent's greatest force. It's not like in a game of 40k I can always just sneak around him and take the enemy capitol for the win...

Unless you're playing the right kind of Campaign.

I'd actually be rather interested in seeing (reading, whatever) about 40k rules and models being used in a non-ending campaign, where you can choose to simply move your guys past his, off the opposite table edge, and engage at a later time, in a different location- or that doesn't end with the turns, but keeps going until some tactical objective is complete, with rules for reinforcements and such.

Richard Rahl, who was a fictional general in a science fantasty series I read had a pretty good quote "Cut. Once committed to fight, Cut. Everything else is secondary. Cut. That is your duty, your purpose, your hunger. There is no rule more important, no commitment that overrides this one. Cut"

Anvildude wrote:Unless you're playing the right kind of Campaign.

I'd actually be rather interested in seeing (reading, whatever) about 40k rules and models being used in a non-ending campaign, where you can choose to simply move your guys past his, off the opposite table edge, and engage at a later time, in a different location- or that doesn't end with the turns, but keeps going until some tactical objective is complete, with rules for reinforcements and such.

I was thinking bout this. That and unequal armies (like 1500 vs 2000 to represent actual battles, since as we all know, asymmetrical forces are very much the norm) and that you can choose where to attack or defend.

Like a few players can guard a key city or whatever and the attacking player has the choice to either attack a very strong and very fortified position OR moving past it. Bring a more strategic element to the game.

This thread needs to die so bad. For every quote from Sun Tzu or Clauswitz that might, maybe, have some application to 40k, I could find three that are completely inapplicable. Those books were written as primers on strategy for the time and place in which they were written. They don't have anything to do with 40k, chess, or any other game of strategy.

Here is the only quote I have ever found to be applicable:

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." -George S. Patton

And I tend to play a very aggressive, 'glass cannon' style of Necrons.

GreatGunz wrote:Those books were written as primers on strategy for the time and place in which they were written. They don't have anything to do with 40k, chess, or any other game of strategy.

Which is why The Art of War is still being read by business and political leaders and institutions like the US Army consider it a must read. It's not about doing what Sun Tzu or Clauswitz did or would do, its about the concepts and principles that are behind them.

They read it because Americans have always had a fad for things foreign and exotic. They want to believe that there's some kind of mystical "wisdom of the ancients" that will do their thinking for them. The whole thing is an exercise in laziness.

Clausewitz doesn't have much to say about your 40k game. He was talking about napoleonic-era infantry tactics. Trying to drag him into a 40k game is all kinds of silly. Same thing for Sun Tzu, who was talking about bronze age chariot warfare.

Anyway the concepts are fairly well known. It's the specifics of their application that's tricky. Sorry, you can't get Clausewitz and Sun Tzu to play your 40k game for you. It just doesn't work that way.

GreatGunz wrote:They read it because Americans have always had a fad for things foreign and exotic. They want to believe that there's some kind of mystical "wisdom of the ancients" that will do their thinking for them. The whole thing is an exercise in laziness.

Oh I agree, there is a very American/western concept of mystical eastern/exotic wisdom to be found in things like the Art of War. American's especially like quotes and statements that are bold and tough, such as that Patton quote that's been floating around this thread (Which really when you examine it is a bit of a "Duh" thing, but said in a such a way it has become a piece of military "truth". How amusing.). It's the concepts that can be applied to chariot warfare and napoleonic-era infantry and to modern warfare and to punching on with the bloke at the pub that are valuable. The art of war is a historical document that contains certain truths within it, not a document of certain military truths.

GreatGunz wrote:Anyway the concepts are fairly well known. It's the specifics of their application that's tricky. Sorry, you can't get Clausewitz and Sun Tzu to play your 40k game for you. It just doesn't work that way.

If the concept is well known the person should not have a problem applying it. If the concepts were well known people wouldn't quote Patton essentially saying "the object of war (in his particular framing, fighting to the death) is not to die and make the other bugger die", which to me seems really bloody obvious. And no need to apologize, I wasn't asking for a long dead man to play my game for me.

Although Sun Tzu would probably come up with a plan to slip something in the opponents drink/swarm him with women and other such sneaky distractions, so If I did have to choose who to advise me at the 40k table It would probably be Sun Tzu over Clausewitz who would probably try to get me to line up in pie plate formation

Well, and Sun Tsu can't "play the game" for you. That's not to say that his works are irrelevant or purely mystical.

Winning a war (or in this case, a game of 40k) isn't a science, no matter how much certain writers of old wished it would be. It's more like art or engineering. That said, there is good art, and there is bad art. Likewise, there are certain engineering principles that you have to follow regardless of how much creative control you have over a project. Likewise, there are good generals and bad generals, and good 40k players and bad 40k players.

What art, engineering, and 40k have in common is that, among other things, they are also a skill. Skills can be learned a variety of ways, but one of the ways you can learn something is by being taught it. Clausewitz can't tell you whether to move the unit with a heavy weapon or stay still and shoot at a less-optimal target. What reading other people's work will do, though, is impress a certain aesthetic on your psyche - an aesthetic conducive to success.

Of course, you still have to work out this aesthetic on your own through several trials of your own experience. After all, your brain is the connection between abstract ideas and actual actions. That said, training your brain to think about abstract ideas in certain ways - to think like a strategist - actually does help, as it gives you a stronger position from which to make concrete decisions.

In a way, military writers and art historians and the like are sort of like the Bible. The point isn't what exactly it says explicitly, the point is how it affects the person who hears the message, and how that effects the way they think about things and the way they behave in the future. Yeah, it's mystical, in the proper sense of the word, but it's still true.

The Prussian may not tell me what to do, but thinking about the way he thinks about offense and defense is probably going to make me better at both than someone who hasn't read his works.

Ailaros wrote:In a way, military writers and art historians and the like are sort of like the Bible. The point isn't what exactly it says explicitly, the point is how it affects the person who hears the message, and how that effects the way they think about things and the way they behave in the future. Yeah, it's mystical, in the proper sense of the word, but it's still true.

please tell me you didn't. Your argument was good up until that point ><

It's still good- unless you're considering it from the point of view of a fundamentalist who believes each and every word literally (which is a baaaad idea- as it's been translated, and re-translated so much that simple things like 'poisoner' get switched around to 'witch')

But if using religious icons as similes makes you uncomfortable, consider it then as an art class.

You aren't going to become a world famous artist by making paper-mache baloons (usually), but that's what you do in very basic art classes. The point is to get you thinking about the concepts as things that can be changed and manipulated and used as tools- the human can easily look at a stick and see how it can be used as a physical tool- a lever, but it takes a certain kind of thinking to realize that same stick could be carved into a totem that would sway the thoughts of your compatriots.

Jihallah wrote:

Ailaros wrote:In a way, military writers and art historians and the like are sort of like the Bible. The point isn't what exactly it says explicitly, the point is how it affects the person who hears the message, and how that effects the way they think about things and the way they behave in the future. Yeah, it's mystical, in the proper sense of the word, but it's still true.

please tell me you didn't. Your argument was good up until that point ><

As Simon Barak said, "It doesn't matter if it was exactly a hundred thousand Israelites in the desert - it doesn't matter if there were ten thousand or one hundred, or ZERO. The point of the Exodus story is how people should relate to God."

The same is true of sun tsu and von clausewitz and the like. The point isn't to do exactly what they say that you should do (as that would make them largely irrelevant), but rather the point is what those authors get you to think about.

We're all armchair generals. Congrats.

It's a Sean Connery, but I think it applies to me:

"If you sit by a river long enough, you'll see the body of your enemy float by."

Well, it applies to me because my movement phase is entirely lacking: There is none.

Okay, that's not true either; my movement phase just doesn't take long; it's like 'move Land raider, position Vulkan and squad for assault.'

Of course, the next level is my GK codex, where I think the motto

"Burn baby burn, disco inferno" will apply.

Ailaros wrote:

Jihallah wrote:

Ailaros wrote:In a way, military writers and art historians and the like are sort of like the Bible. The point isn't what exactly it says explicitly, the point is how it affects the person who hears the message, and how that effects the way they think about things and the way they behave in the future. Yeah, it's mystical, in the proper sense of the word, but it's still true.

please tell me you didn't. Your argument was good up until that point ><

As Simon Barak said, "It doesn't matter if it was exactly a hundred thousand Israelites in the desert - it doesn't matter if there were ten thousand or one hundred, or ZERO. The point of the Exodus story is how people should relate to God."

A nuanced view on the bible? On the internet?

The same is true of sun tsu and von clausewitz and the like. The point isn't to do exactly what they say that you should do (as that would make them largely irrelevant), but rather the point is what those authors get you to think about.

Fair enough. It's good to think about strategy. But it's crazy to play your game one way and not another because you read something in Sun Tzu. Every once in a while there's a passage that might be illuminating. "All warfare is based on deception." Ok great. But for every one of those I can find three more that are totally inapplicable. For instance "On dispersive ground, therefore, fight not. On facile ground, halt not. On contentious ground, attack not." Reading through the thread it just seems silly to put all this stock in the Art of War. You're better off reading one of Space Curve's tactics articles on BOLS.

Although Clausewitz dealt with 19th century civil warfare based on musketry, cavalry and cannons and Sun Tsus armies fought with spear, sword and bow on foot and on horse or chariot, they still talk about the same subject.

The only problem with those guys is, that they are guides for winning wars. 40k is a game with the goal to win a small battle.

So we have to break it down into our scale. Sun Tsu advises you to pretend weakness per se to hide your strengths, this can be done easily. Sun Tsu means it on a great scale of warfare. Pretended weakness results in a hasty attack, which will be crushed by a better organised opponent in a battle. 40k has a different scale, we have a battlefield with several units on it instead of a big country with several armies. Now breaking it down to our scale we take in example a very deceptive unit: The guard infantry blob. It has hidden strength and hidden weaknesses and is a perfect example to apply this idea.

We tell the opponent about the unit emphasizing the following way: "This unit of 21 models has only 3 models with only S3-powerweapons and 18 weak guardsmen with lasguns. Though they will not break from shooting most likely because the commissar improves their ld value by 1 and gives them stubborn, they will most likely lose an assault against any opponent."

As an opponent, what would you think would be the best option? My first approach would be attempting to charge headon into this unit even with the worst unit, I have. Which is the worst thing I could do. But thats the same picture that Sun Tsu has on a larger scale. A hasty attack with a force too weak to deal with the offer.

BTW: Would you consider such attempts to deceive the opponent bad sports?

On dispersive ground, therefore, fight not. On facile ground, halt not. On contentious ground, attack not.

Of course this can be applied.

dispersive ground: own territory -> homebase
facile ground: almost enemy territory -> if you have got past the middle line and stand i.e. in front of the enemys deployment zone.
contentious ground: strategic point on the battlefield in reach of both armies -> middle marker

OK let me transfer to 40k:

1. Don't get the fight to your homebase (the marker you consider yours).
2. If you attack the enemy, dont halt the attack halfway or you will lose impact.
3. If you bum rush right into the most precious position, you will be crushed immediately.

Of course this can be applied.

dispersive ground: own territory -> homebase
facile ground: almost enemy territory -> if you have got past the middle line and stand i.e. in front of the enemys deployment zone.
contentious ground: strategic point on the battlefield in reach of both armies -> middle marker

OK let me transfer to 40k:

1. Don't get the fight to your homebase (the marker you consider yours).
2. If you attack the enemy, dont halt the attack halfway or you will lose impact.
3. If you bum rush right into the most precious position, you will be crushed immediately.

Sun Tzu didn't say "home base." He said "dispersive ground." He's not talking about objective markers at all. You have to read and understand the text on its own terms, otherwise you're just making it say what you want it to say. Saying that Sun Tzu was giving advice about 40k is unbelievably silly.

Sun Tzu didn't say "home base." He said "dispersive ground." He's not talking about objective markers at all. You have to read and understand the text on its own terms, otherwise you're just making it say what you want it to say. Saying that Sun Tzu was giving advice about 40k is unbelievably silly.

Unbelievably silly is how you read my post...

Sun Tsu said "dispersive ground" and explained it before as:

Where the rulers do battle in their own ground, this is called dispersive ground.

. Own ground cannot be translated to home base? No?

I did not say that Sun Tsu was advising me on how I play 40k. He couldn't do that because he didnt know 40k and I assume it didnt exist when he lived.

I did say that I can use his very general advice on warfare and adapt it to think about my strategies on the 40k table. So I make it say what I want it to say in a certain way, yes. But if I get some knowledge out of it that I can use, it is in fact part of the text, because without the text maybe I wouldnt have that knowledge.

I tend to work from the American Principles of War, primarily because they come with a little more explanation than the British ones (even if it does read like it was put together by committee). Of course, I also have my Clauswitz phases, as well as Musashi (and I'm kind of surprised the Book of Five Rings hasn't been mentioned in this discussion yet). But every 40K engegement is a strategic failure, since you have arrived on the field with a force roughly equivalent to that of ther enemy.

The United States Armed Forces use the following nine principles of war:

Objective – Direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive and attainable objective. The ultimate military purpose of war is the destruction of the enemy's ability to fight and will to fight.

Offensive – Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative. Offensive action is the most effective and decisive way to attain a clearly defined common objective. Offensive operations are the means by which a military force seizes and holds the initiative while maintaining freedom of action and achieving decisive results. This is fundamentally true across all levels of war.

Mass – Mass the effects of overwhelming combat power at the decisive place and time. Synchronizing all the elements of combat power where they will have decisive effect on an enemy force in a short period of time is to achieve mass. Massing effects, rather than concentrating forces, can enable numerically inferior forces to achieve decisive results, while limiting exposure to enemy fire.

Economy of Force – Employ all combat power available in the most effective way possible; allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts. Economy of force is the judicious employment and distribution of forces. No part of the force should ever be left without purpose. The allocation of available combat power to such tasks as limited attacks, defense, delays, deception, or even retrograde operations is measured in order to achieve mass elsewhere at the decisive point and time on the battlefield. ...

Maneuver – Place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through the flexible application of combat power. Maneuver is the movement of forces in relation to the enemy to gain positional advantage. Effective maneuver keeps the enemy off balance and protects the force. It is used to exploit successes, to preserve freedom of action, and to reduce vulnerability. It continually poses new problems for the enemy by rendering his actions ineffective, eventually leading to defeat. ...

Unity of Command – For every objective, seek unity of command and unity of effort. At all levels of war, employment of military forces in a manner that masses combat power toward a common objective requires unity of command and unity of effort. Unity of command means that all the forces are under one responsible commander. It requires a single commander with the requisite authority to direct all forces in pursuit of a unified purpose.

Security – Never permit the enemy to acquire unexpected advantage. Security enhances freedom of action by reducing vulnerability to hostile acts, influence, or surprise. Security results from the measures taken by a commander to protect his forces. Knowledge and understanding of enemy strategy, tactics, doctrine, and staff planning improve the detailed planning of adequate security measures.

Surprise – Strike the enemy at a time or place or in a manner for which he is unprepared. Surprise can decisively shift the balance of combat power. By seeking surprise, forces can achieve success well out of proportion to the effort expended. Surprise can be in tempo, size of force, direction or location of main effort, and timing. Deception can aid the probability of achieving surprise. ...

Simplicity – Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and concise orders to ensure thorough understanding. Everything in war is very simple, but the simple thing is difficult. To the uninitiated, military operations are not difficult. Simplicity contributes to successful operations. Simple plans and clear, concise orders minimize misunderstanding and confusion. Other factors being equal, parsimony is to be preferred.

@Mordiggian

Yes of course a 40k game would be a strategic failure. It is also assumed that both armies did very bad recon jobs because list tailoring is unfair...

So we need to take Sun Tsu or Clausewitz or someone similar with a grain of salt. But saying, it is worthless sounds a bit premature to me.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

Sun Tzu didn't say "home base." He said "dispersive ground." He's not talking about objective markers at all. You have to read and understand the text on its own terms, otherwise you're just making it say what you want it to say. Saying that Sun Tzu was giving advice about 40k is unbelievably silly.

Unbelievably silly is how you read my post...

Sun Tsu said "dispersive ground" and explained it before as:

Where the rulers do battle in their own ground, this is called dispersive ground.

. Own ground cannot be translated to home base? No?

Perhaps, but fighting on your home ground in actual warfare confers advantages which fighting near an objective does not confer in 40k.
So.... still invalid.

I did not say that Sun Tsu was advising me on how I play 40k. He couldn't do that because he didnt know 40k and I assume it didnt exist when he lived.

Yeah that's kind of my point. So no need to drag him into our game, is there?

So I make it say what I want it to say in a certain way, yes. But if I get some knowledge out of it that I can use, it is in fact part of the text, because without the text maybe I wouldnt have that knowledge.

No it's just part of your own knowledge. The text says one thing, you read something else into it, and then you say "aha! Sun Tzu says such and such, so that's what I'm going to do." Sun Tzu didn't say it at all. You said it. It's all you. Sun Tzu doesn't have anything to do with it.

but fighting on your home ground in actual warfare confers advantages which fighting near an objective does not confer in 40k.

Well when S.T. states that you shouldnt fight on home ground, why do you think it is advantageous then? Of course, Sun Tzu means that the enemy can destroy your resources when they get the fight to your ground. In 40k we have no resources, but resources are extremely important strategically. So they can be main targets of a battle. The 40k abstraction to that is the marker.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

but fighting on your home ground in actual warfare confers advantages which fighting near an objective does not confer in 40k.

Well when S.T. states that you shouldnt fight on home ground, why do you think it is advantageous then? Of course, Sun Tzu means that the enemy can destroy your resources when they get the fight to your ground. In 40k we have no resources, but resources are extremely important strategically. So they can be main targets of a battle. The 40k abstraction to that is the marker.

Well I'm not a scholar on bronze aged china, so I don't know precisely. None of us do. That's what I'm getting at. We'd have to read a history book about Sun Tzu's life and times to have any kind of informed opinion on the matter. Dragging Sun Tzu into a game of 40k is both odd and silly. He wasn't talking about 40k, so how you can you try to apply what he's saying to 40k? It's a game. It isn't war at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://sun.thefreelibrary.com/Art-of-War/1-11
here's a link to the entire passage.

If someone really wants to learn about 40k strategy, they're better off reading battle reports and tactical articles than a manual for bronze age chariot warfare. That's what I'm getting at. Sure, every once in a while there will be something relevant. But for the most part..... I'm just not seeing it.

Well reducing Sun Tsus work to a manual for chariot warfare is a bit awkward though.

Of course 40k tactical articles are useful sometimes, but I have seen few tactical articles based on general principles. They rather talk about particular units or lists or situations.

Sun Tsu imho is a text that can be applied on any situation of a conflict with some transferring effort.

Sun Tzu wrote for total war. We're skirmishing. That's the problem I see with using it as a guide.

If anything, Code of the Samurai and The Prince should be used, to inflict damage to vital enemy units and to feth with the mind of the opponent, respectively.

I think it's clear from looking at the whole passage that Sun Tzu is talking about how entire armies move back and forth over terrain - not detachments of a couple dozen soldiers on each side.

Here's another that has no possible application to 40k:
By persistently hanging on the enemy's flank, we shall succeed in the long run in killing the commander-in-chief.

Why "hanging on the enemy's flank" would necessarily result in the death of the enemy commander, I don't know. Presumably he had a reason for saying that. Back then killing the enemy general was a big deal. The whole army could break and run. In 40k it doesn't confer any particular advantage. The enemy HQ is just another unit except in a very few cases.

I could go on but the point is that this passage, if you just read it on its own terms, isn't talking about anything even close to 40k. It's talking about how to conduct strategic operations in bronze age china. Any of the bits that are applicable are things that you shouldn't have to read Sun Tzu to learn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

-Nazdreg- wrote:

If someone really wants to learn about 40k strategy, they're better off reading battle reports and tactical articles than a manual for bronze age chariot warfare. That's what I'm getting at. Sure, every once in a while there will be something relevant. But for the most part..... I'm just not seeing it.

Well reducing Sun Tsus work to a manual for chariot warfare is a bit awkward though.

No, that's exactly what it is.

Of course 40k tactical articles are useful sometimes, but I have seen few tactical articles based on general principles. They rather talk about particular units or lists or situations.

Because that's what 40k is.

By persistently hanging on the enemy's flank, we shall succeed in the long run in killing the commander-in-chief.

Hm this is indeed strange. I don't know why a flank attack should have resulted in a killing of the commander-in-chief...
No idea what he means here, so I can't transfer it.

What I can transfer is that hanging on an enemys flank has merits. He must choose between ignoring the threat or wheeling around to deal with the new force and therefore give up his initial attack.
Second bonus is a quite devastating crossfire effect.

But this has nothing to do with the commander-in-chief. I don't even know which function it had at that time, so I cant find an equivalent on the 40k table.

No, that's exactly what it is.

Because that's what 40k is.

No offence: I think this is a quite limited view on both things then ;(

-Nazdreg- wrote:No offence: I think this is a quite limited view on both things then ;(

Fair enough.

GreatGunz wrote:

-Nazdreg- wrote:

but fighting on your home ground in actual warfare confers advantages which fighting near an objective does not confer in 40k.

Well when S.T. states that you shouldnt fight on home ground, why do you think it is advantageous then? Of course, Sun Tzu means that the enemy can destroy your resources when they get the fight to your ground. In 40k we have no resources, but resources are extremely important strategically. So they can be main targets of a battle. The 40k abstraction to that is the marker.

Well I'm not a scholar on bronze aged china, so I don't know precisely. None of us do. That's what I'm getting at. We'd have to read a history book about Sun Tzu's life and times to have any kind of informed opinion on the matter. Dragging Sun Tzu into a game of 40k is both odd and silly. He wasn't talking about 40k, so how you can you try to apply what he's saying to 40k? It's a game. It isn't war at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://sun.thefreelibrary.com/Art-of-War/1-11
here's a link to the entire passage.

Well shoot, since you put it that way, i suppose there is no value what so ever by reading about war. Yep. It seems that flanking attacks, utilizing cover, manuver, covering fire, attacking the opponant's weak points, strategic withdrawals, and other hallmarks of warfare new and ANCIENT have absolutely no place on the table top.

Since it's only a game.

About war.

Some truths are universal. It doesn't matter if you are fighting with arrows or las cannons, swords or powerklaws. We do not study Michaelangelo, Raphael, or Botticelli so that we can paint like them. The styles of the Archaic Period in Greece are super out of style, but we still study them. Why? Because they make us think critically about art and it's evolution, to explore the primal ideas about beauty and truth that humanity has dealt with for millenia. A poor artist imitates. A true artist interprets.

A fool accepts the teachings of generals and philosophers of the past without question. A wise man looks at those teachings and wonders "How can that be applied to what I am doing now? Is it still relevant?" These teachings then lead us to think. Any fool can parrot Sun Tsu, but a true general knows when the old man is wrong. The thing that many fail to realize is that many of Sun Tzu's teachings come from a time when such ideas were radical. Alexander the Great created the military much as we know it today. He had a system of ranks and delegated portions of an over all plan of attack. That idea was lost for a long time and for much of the dark ages, battles were fought by men charging at each other as fast as they could, screaming. It was bravery (or foolishness) that won or lost a battle more than skill with a sword, and such battles were almost NEVER fought by leaders who studied the land or their enemies.

This whole thread (which you insist must die) is actually, per the OP, meant to be an examination of when sources of war wisdom are actually applicable to the table top. IMO there is as much to learn about wargaming by learning about war as there is to learn about war by war gaming. It prepares the mind for that mode of thinking by making you ask questions to understand what is being said.

Nagashek wrote:Well shoot, since you put it that way, i suppose there is no value what so ever by reading about war. Yep. It seems that flanking attacks, utilizing cover, manuver, covering fire, attacking the opponant's weak points, strategic withdrawals, and other hallmarks of warfare new and ANCIENT have absolutely no place on the table top.

Reading about war is great, but it isn't going to tell you much about 40k. To go down your list:

Flanking attacks were important in napoleonic and american civil war-era battles because regiments fought in a rectangular formation, so if one regiment faced its broad end towards another units short end, the second unit couldn't fight back without reordering itself, and in any case because the bodies would be bunched together so much closer from the first unit's perspective, their fire would be more effective. This was called the enfilade. There's no equivalent in 40k. It doesn't matter from what angle you shoot or assault an opponent, the rules are the same. So that's a good example of how taking clausewitz or Jackson or the advice of some other 19th century general, and trying to make it work in 40k, is counterproductive.

The only thing that does change with the angle of attack is intervening cover. There is a rules mechanic in that for 40k, so that holds pretty well. But there is no equivalent for covering or "suppressive" fire, which is something that was developed around the second world war as a part of rifle team tactics. The purpose of covering fire is not to kill the other guy, but to get him to keep his head down while your team mates move up closer and closer. The goal is to get one or two men so close to the other guys that you can just spray them all down with submachine gun fire and it's adios muchachos. There's no equivalent to that in 40k, so again, out.

The closest thing to a strategic withdrawel in 40k is hit and run. There are really only two uses for this in 40k, both of them fairly obvious. 1. You're getting wiped in close combat, try to run away. 2. You're winning in close combat and you want to set up a second charge. They're both fairly strait forward so I'm not sure what Sun Tzu or Clausewitz is going to tell you about those that you can't figure out for yourself. "Attacking weak points" is similarly obvious.

GreatGunz wrote:

Nagashek wrote:Well shoot, since you put it that way, i suppose there is no value what so ever by reading about war. Yep. It seems that flanking attacks, utilizing cover, manuver, covering fire, attacking the opponant's weak points, strategic withdrawals, and other hallmarks of warfare new and ANCIENT have absolutely no place on the table top.

Reading about war is great, but it isn't going to tell you much about 40k. To go down your list:

Flanking attacks were important in napoleonic and american civil war-era battles because regiments fought in a rectangular formation, so if one regiment faced its broad end towards another units short end, the second unit couldn't fight back without reordering itself, and in any case because the bodies would be bunched together so much closer from the first unit's perspective, their fire would be more effective. This was called the enfilade. There's no equivalent in 40k. It doesn't matter from what angle you shoot or assault an opponent, the rules are the same. So that's a good example of how taking clausewitz or Jackson or the advice of some other 19th century general, and trying to make it work in 40k, is counterproductive.

Hitting from a flank is still a valid military tactic in use today. It does not merely refer to hitting a regimented ranked enemy at the vulnerable parts of their formation. Even armies who fight rather amorphously have a flank or rear to be hit. By hitting from multiple angles, the enemy must divide the focus of his fire, and therefore his attention. IRL, you can just pump all rounds down range and expect to hit something. The more rounds in one direction fired, the greater likelyhood that you will hit something. In 40k, that doesn't EXACTLY hold true, but still you must divert resources in a direction OTHER than your opponant's battle lines to deal with the threat. You will not run the enemy off the board (as you will in fantasy) by hitting the flank, but you will cause your opponant to reorder his attack to deal with you. Thus: hitting the flank has value in 40k. Just because it has a DIFFERENT value, does not mean it lacks one.

The only thing that does change with the angle of attack is intervening cover. There is a rules mechanic in that for 40k, so that holds pretty well. But there is no equivalent for covering or "suppressive" fire, which is something that was developed around the second world war as a part of rifle team tactics. The purpose of covering fire is not to kill the other guy, but to get him to keep his head down while your team mates move up closer and closer. The goal is to get one or two men so close to the other guys that you can just spray them all down with submachine gun fire and it's adios muchachos. There's no equivalent to that in 40k, so again, out.

If I am manuvering my forces along your flank (see above) and I want them to get there safely, or, if I want to get my CC elements into play, I will destroy/soften/pin (still a rule in the game, and it DOES keep people's heads down, despite its less reliable status) the units that will interfere with my manuver or deployment of forces relative to their position. IE I will destroy the enemy's counter assault units in reach or ranged units with line of sight on the units I intend to move.

The closest thing to a strategic withdrawel in 40k is hit and run. There are really only two uses for this in 40k, both of them fairly obvious. 1. You're getting wiped in close combat, try to run away. 2. You're winning in close combat and you want to set up a second charge. They're both fairly strait forward so I'm not sure what Sun Tzu or Clausewitz is going to tell you about those that you can't figure out for yourself. "Attacking weak points" is similarly obvious.

There are more ways to withdraw than to use "Hit and Run." Simply pulling away from an objective or a point that the enemy is moving towards by physically moving your models away, or placing them out of line of sight is a withdrawal. Does your enemy want to shoot you? Get behind LOS blocking terrain. Make them come to you. Then when they do, manuver your forces in such a way that you destroy them. You have dictated the terms of their manuver, and in drawing them in, you might even hit them on the flank.

Amorphous means "without shape." A thing that has no shape cannot have a front, rear, or flanks. By definition.

That's the only part of your post where I can explain to you clearly and unambiguously why you're wrong. Everything else you wrote is just plain nonsense.

Who has the time to drum up half these over-analyzed wisdoms and sagely advice, half the time when someone finds the 'perfect' quote for their tactical style, the opponent already ate it.

I would love to 'think' or 'sage' my opponent to death with abused quotes, but shooting his stuff is far more effective.

GreatGunz wrote:Amorphous means "without shape." A thing that has no shape cannot have a front, rear, or flanks. By definition.

That's the only part of your post where I can explain to you clearly and unambiguously why you're wrong. Everything else you wrote is just plain nonsense.

The phrase I used was "rather amorphously." The use of the word "rather" is meant to imply "somewhat or not entirely" Even if I used the word "amorphously" unadjusted, an amorphous shape does not mean that it does not have a tender area that is vulnerable to attack. This is the definition of a flank that I am using in this case. I apologize if this was not clear from context.

When you figure out where I am wrong, just let me know. I know it isn't about the current use of flanking manuvers, or the value of striking from multiple angles, saturation of fire, manuvering or forcing the enemy to redeploy. Since these are all valid and well used tactics. Since I didn't mention anything else, I'm just as confused as you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do have to ask, and I mean this in all seriousness: how do you play 40k? Do you, at any point while playing, try to win? (Not, "Are you WAAC or not," but does winning matter in any way to you) If you try to win, what do you use to win? Shoot the big ones with lascannons or something? Rush the enemy? Do you consider the terrain and layout of the board or is this simply a game of numbers to you? Knowing how you play might give me a better understanding of this disconnect we are having here.

GreatGunz wrote:

Ailaros wrote:

Jihallah wrote:

Ailaros wrote:In a way, military writers and art historians and the like are sort of like the Bible. The point isn't what exactly it says explicitly, the point is how it affects the person who hears the message, and how that effects the way they think about things and the way they behave in the future. Yeah, it's mystical, in the proper sense of the word, but it's still true.

please tell me you didn't. Your argument was good up until that point ><

As Simon Barak said, "It doesn't matter if it was exactly a hundred thousand Israelites in the desert - it doesn't matter if there were ten thousand or one hundred, or ZERO. The point of the Exodus story is how people should relate to God."

A nuanced view on the bible? On the internet?

I wouldn't really call his view nuanced, but it is amusing the bible idea of the bible being true and that Exodus is a story on how we should relate to a quite probably non-existent being. But clearly we disagree and here is not the place to discuss world religions.

GreatGunz wrote:

-Nazdreg- wrote:

but fighting on your home ground in actual warfare confers advantages which fighting near an objective does not confer in 40k.

Well when S.T. states that you shouldnt fight on home ground, why do you think it is advantageous then? Of course, Sun Tzu means that the enemy can destroy your resources when they get the fight to your ground. In 40k we have no resources, but resources are extremely important strategically. So they can be main targets of a battle. The 40k abstraction to that is the marker.

Well I'm not a scholar on bronze aged china, so I don't know precisely. None of us do. That's what I'm getting at.

You don't need to be a scholar to realize being invaded, which is what happens when you fight on home ground, 1) sucks and 2) Is very not an advantage!

GreatGunz wrote:

Nagashek wrote:Well shoot, since you put it that way, i suppose there is no value what so ever by reading about war. Yep. It seems that flanking attacks, utilizing cover, manuver, covering fire, attacking the opponant's weak points, strategic withdrawals, and other hallmarks of warfare new and ANCIENT have absolutely no place on the table top.

Reading about war is great, but it isn't going to tell you much about 40k.

I don't think you've read much about war, what with thinking fighting home ground and being invaded counts as an advantage.

GreatGunz wrote:To go down your list:

Flanking attacks were important in napoleonic and american civil war-era battles because regiments fought in a rectangular formation, so if one regiment faced its broad end towards another units short end, the second unit couldn't fight back without reordering itself, and in any case because the bodies would be bunched together so much closer from the first unit's perspective, their fire would be more effective. This was called the enfilade. There's no equivalent in 40k. It doesn't matter from what angle you shoot or assault an opponent, the rules are the same. So that's a good example of how taking clausewitz or Jackson or the advice of some other 19th century general, and trying to make it work in 40k, is counterproductive.

Shooting at a vehicle matters what angle you shoot at. Especially since most people present front armor...so the flanks is where you get side shots. holy crap my typhoon flanking your army is useless in your view but my god I love putting krak missiles in side armor, 2 per turn
You're either trolling or very special.

@GreatGunz

Well if you think that basic principles of conflict (not even only war) can't be applied to 40k since its all rolling dice and comparing dicks, I hope for your list that we won't meet on the field then...

KplKeegan wrote:Who has the time to drum up half these over-analyzed wisdoms and sagely advice, half the time when someone finds the 'perfect' quote for their tactical style, the opponent already ate it.

I would love to 'think' or 'sage' my opponent to death with abused quotes, but shooting his stuff is far more effective.

You fail to plan you plan to fail.

What we're talking about (I agree it is absurd) is that you use a quote to help you devise a plan.

the only military quote I know but it fits 40k

Sun Tzu wrote:

If you know yourself and your enemy, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

If you know yourself but not the enemy for every victory you will also suffer a defeat.

If you know neither yourself or the enemy you will succumb in every battle.

Nom

-Nazdreg- wrote:@GreatGunz

Well if you think that basic principles of conflict (not even only war) can't be applied to 40k since its all rolling dice and comparing dicks, I hope for your list that we won't meet on the field then...

Why do you so much? I've noticed alot of in your posts. Is there any specific reason for the ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KplKeegan wrote:Who has the time to drum up half these over-analyzed wisdoms and sagely advice, half the time when someone finds the 'perfect' quote for their tactical style, the opponent already ate it.

I would love to 'think' or 'sage' my opponent to death with abused quotes, but shooting his stuff is far more effective.

Thankyou.

Jihallah wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:Those books were written as primers on strategy for the time and place in which they were written. They don't have anything to do with 40k, chess, or any other game of strategy.

Which is why The Art of War is still being read by business and political leaders and institutions like the US Army consider it a must read. It's not about doing what Sun Tzu or Clauswitz did or would do, its about the concepts and principles that are behind them.

Perhaps. However, anyone in a business meeting that starts talking about Sun Tzu is basically just identifying themselves as a massive D-bag. Very few actions other than buying Ed Hardy T-shirts together with Axe body spray will identify your D-baggery more clearly.

Nagashek wrote:I do have to ask, and I mean this in all seriousness: how do you play 40k? Do you, at any point while playing, try to win? (Not, "Are you WAAC or not," but does winning matter in any way to you) If you try to win, what do you use to win? Shoot the big ones with lascannons or something? Rush the enemy? Do you consider the terrain and layout of the board or is this simply a game of numbers to you? Knowing how you play might give me a better understanding of this disconnect we are having here.

Yes of course I try to outthink my opponent. Look you don't have to read Sun Tzu to understand basic things about strategy like "attack where your opponent is weak" or "use your capabilities to the fullest." These things are more or less obvious and go without saying. The trick isn't to grasp the principle. The trick is to figure out how it applies in your particular situation. Sun Tzu isn't going to help with that. Every example where you say "Sun Tzu said A B and C and this is how it applies to a game of 40k" is an example of how you don't need Sun Tzu to play this game at all. You figured out how to apply it. You're the general. Not Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu has been dead for thousands of years and doesn't have anything to say about 40k.

In the words of the ancients, one should make his decisions within the space of seven breaths. Lord Takanobu said, "If discrimination is long, it will spoil. " Lord Naoshige said, "When matters are done leisurely, seven out of ten will turn out badly. A warrior is a person who does things quickly.'' When your mind is going hither and thither, discrimination will never be brought to a conclusion. With an intense, fresh and undelaying spirit, one will make his judgments within the space of seven breaths. It is a matter of being determined and having the spirit to break right through to the other side.

-- Hagakure (Way of the Samurai)

This one clearly means it's sportsmanship to slow play your opponent at tournaments. Those ancients knew so much.

GreatGunz wrote:

Yes of course I try to outthink my opponent. Look you don't have to read Sun Tzu to understand basic things about strategy like "attack where your opponent is weak" or "use your capabilities to the fullest." These things are more or less obvious and go without saying. The trick isn't to grasp the principle. The trick is to figure out how it applies in your particular situation. Sun Tzu isn't going to help with that. Every example where you say "Sun Tzu said A B and C and this is how it applies to a game of 40k" is an example of how you don't need Sun Tzu to play this game at all. You figured out how to apply it. You're the general. Not Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu has been dead for thousands of years and doesn't have anything to say about 40k.

Applying a text, such as Sun Tsu, to a situation for which it was not specifically written, such as a wargame, is called interpretation. We do not need Sun Tsu to play Warhammer, but sometimes it's quite interesting to have a conversation about the way in which some of Sun Tsu's book can be applied, effectively or not, to a wargame, because different people will interpret the text differently. In addition, understanding where your (potential) opponent's tactical doctrine comes from is an excellent step in understanding them, which can lead to defeating them.

Jihallah wrote:
You don't need to be a scholar to realize being invaded, which is what happens when you fight on home ground, 1) sucks and 2) Is very not an advantage!

Shortened supply lines, higher moral ( because now your soldiers actualy defend their homes instead of conquering those of others ), lenghtened supply lines for your enemy as well as the ability to sucessfully raid these lenghtened supply lines are all advantages of fighting close to home.
Sun Tzu's advice not to fight close to home might reflect on the lack of professionalism that marked many pre modern armies, where the average soldier was often a conscripted farmer who would have prefered to
simply go home and work his lands if given the opportunity .

KingDeath wrote:

Jihallah wrote:
You don't need to be a scholar to realize being invaded, which is what happens when you fight on home ground, 1) sucks and 2) Is very not an advantage!

Shortened supply lines, higher moral ( because now your soldiers actualy defend their homes instead of conquering those of others ), lenghtened supply lines for your enemy as well as the ability to sucessfully raid these lenghtened supply lines are all advantages of fighting close to home.
Sun Tzu's advice not to fight close to home might reflect on the lack of professionalism that marked many pre modern armies, where the average soldier was often a conscripted farmer who would have prefered to
simply go home and work his lands if given the opportunity .

You forgot: greater access to your capital, supplies, civilians, families, and having no where else to turn if you fail. Though you know your terrain intimately and defending your homeland gives you significant amounts of zeal, often times the devastation wrought by the invader is not worth the short term advantage in terrain. Many are those who believe that wars are won in the offense. Most times when you are fighting at home you have lost that initiative. Notable exceptions, however, include X invasion of Russia (pick one, they all ended badly, though more because of the impossibility of occupying or destroying enough terrain to make a difference) and Vietnam (which was lost when support at home failed thanks to some clever wrangling by the Vietnamese)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GreatGunz wrote:

Nagashek wrote:I do have to ask, and I mean this in all seriousness: how do you play 40k? Do you, at any point while playing, try to win? (Not, "Are you WAAC or not," but does winning matter in any way to you) If you try to win, what do you use to win? Shoot the big ones with lascannons or something? Rush the enemy? Do you consider the terrain and layout of the board or is this simply a game of numbers to you? Knowing how you play might give me a better understanding of this disconnect we are having here.

Yes of course I try to outthink my opponent. Look you don't have to read Sun Tzu to understand basic things about strategy like "attack where your opponent is weak" or "use your capabilities to the fullest." These things are more or less obvious and go without saying. The trick isn't to grasp the principle. The trick is to figure out how it applies in your particular situation. Sun Tzu isn't going to help with that. Every example where you say "Sun Tzu said A B and C and this is how it applies to a game of 40k" is an example of how you don't need Sun Tzu to play this game at all. You figured out how to apply it. You're the general. Not Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu has been dead for thousands of years and doesn't have anything to say about 40k.

And that is true, but the purposefullness of this discussion was to find out when others have said things that are correct. For instance: Tau and Space Marines play in two very different ways. Yet when I applied the Tau way of war to Space Marines, I went undefeated. The point is to find new ways of looking at things. You DON'T have to read Clausewitz or Napoleon to understand strategy. Some know it inherently. Accordingly, some who read those things STILL don't understand strategy. They just quote, and nod their heads sagely, while I casually rip their lines to shreds.

Not everyone knows the principles. Not everyone knows how to apply them to a particular situation. I read about strategy to think critically about the situations presented: could I have come up with a better plan? Were there holes I could have seen through? If I were presented with such a dilemma, how would I win through? Thinking critically about strategy is what I feel many of us think this whole thread is about. Most of us have agreed: Parroting strategists is worthless. But reading them, questioning them, analyzing them: this has value. When you think about a problem before it becomes a problem, you already have answers ready when it arises. ("Matters of great concern should be treated lightly...") There are entire subsections of this board devoted TO EXACTLY THAT THING. Finding new variations on old solutions can be very beneficial to your critical thinking and problem solving.

To me, reading about tactics is like a koan or philosophical riddle. "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" By examining this question and its many facets, one can find answers one did not expect.

Mordiggian wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:

Yes of course I try to outthink my opponent. Look you don't have to read Sun Tzu to understand basic things about strategy like "attack where your opponent is weak" or "use your capabilities to the fullest." These things are more or less obvious and go without saying. The trick isn't to grasp the principle. The trick is to figure out how it applies in your particular situation. Sun Tzu isn't going to help with that. Every example where you say "Sun Tzu said A B and C and this is how it applies to a game of 40k" is an example of how you don't need Sun Tzu to play this game at all. You figured out how to apply it. You're the general. Not Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu has been dead for thousands of years and doesn't have anything to say about 40k.

Applying a text, such as Sun Tsu, to a situation for which it was not specifically written, such as a wargame, is called interpretation.

It's called a pretentious waste of time. 40k is a game. Just enjoy it for what it is. If you want a game of deep strategy, play chess. 40k ain't it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nagashek wrote:
To me, reading about tactics is like a koan or philosophical riddle. "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" By examining this question and its many facets, one can find answers one did not expect.

Knock yourself out.

GreatGunz wrote:

Mordiggian wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:

Yes of course I try to outthink my opponent. Look you don't have to read Sun Tzu to understand basic things about strategy like "attack where your opponent is weak" or "use your capabilities to the fullest." These things are more or less obvious and go without saying. The trick isn't to grasp the principle. The trick is to figure out how it applies in your particular situation. Sun Tzu isn't going to help with that. Every example where you say "Sun Tzu said A B and C and this is how it applies to a game of 40k" is an example of how you don't need Sun Tzu to play this game at all. You figured out how to apply it. You're the general. Not Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu has been dead for thousands of years and doesn't have anything to say about 40k.

Applying a text, such as Sun Tsu, to a situation for which it was not specifically written, such as a wargame, is called interpretation.

It's called a pretentious waste of time. chess is a game. Just enjoy it for what it is. If you want a game of deep strategy, play Go. Chess ain't it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nagashek wrote:
To me, reading about tactics is like a koan or philosophical riddle. "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" By examining this question and its many facets, one can find answers one did not expect.

Knock yourself out.

Fixed for you. And I do "knock myself out" on this subject. I have only empirical evidence to support the claim but I think it makes me a better player at every game I play, not just 40k.

I once referenced the similarities between Tau strategy and Sun Tzu's Art of War, IIRC, I was yelled at for a while...

Why do you so much? I've noticed alot of in your posts. Is there any specific reason for the ?

It should indicate that what I post comes with a smile. That means it shouldn't be taken too seriously but rather in a friendly way. Otherwise some post contents could be taken as an insult maybe, but this kind of smile indicates that as a friendly playful provocation.

BTT:

I would love to 'think' or 'sage' my opponent to death with abused quotes, but shooting his stuff is far more effective.

said the uncautious player before he got utterly crushed by his opponent who actually used his mind.

This leads me to my idea of interpreting old guides of conflict:

Yes maybe I know those principles deep down in my subconciousness. But some of those lines help me to reactivate them into my mind in order to use them for situations in 40k, life, sports, whatever. They are just true. Not every single one of course can be applied in any given specific situation, but if I can do something with a line that helps me winning or understanding (which is basically the same) then I can clearly say: Without the existence of this work, maybe I would be less efficient in the game of 40k.

And if I read tactica articles about a venomthrope that doesnt help me very much if I want to play the game sucessfully (it only gives me knowledge about the potential of one unit).
40k armies have the potential to work in extremely different ways. So specific units must stay out of articles that can improve your basic skills of the game.
My goal is to play each army I have in the most effective way possible. So if I read an article about how to play a Landraider in combination with Thunderhammer stormshield termies and a nullzone libby, I dont get any knowledge on how to win the game in general. I only get knowledge in using this specific combination of units.

But if the articles only deal with units and unit combinations or special situations using those units, what does that cause?

The 40k players always field those units, because they only know how to use these specific units in these specific situations given in the articles. This is the reason why we have such a poor variety of lists and terrain on tournaments, which is absolutely unnecessary.

So the question should be: How do I win the game regardless of what I field? If there is an article like that, then I stop reading war guides.

-Nazdreg- wrote: Something Intelligent

+1. Nicely put.

Nemesor Dave wrote:In the words of the ancients, one should make his decisions within the space of seven breaths. Lord Takanobu said, "If discrimination is long, it will spoil. " Lord Naoshige said, "When matters are done leisurely, seven out of ten will turn out badly. A warrior is a person who does things quickly.'' When your mind is going hither and thither, discrimination will never be brought to a conclusion. With an intense, fresh and undelaying spirit, one will make his judgments within the space of seven breaths. It is a matter of being determined and having the spirit to break right through to the other side.

-- Hagakure (Way of the Samurai)

This one clearly means it's sportsmanship to slow play your opponent at tournaments. Those ancients knew so much.

I'm not sure what your definition of ancient is, but the Hagakure was originally recorded in 1716.


EDIT: And hagakure means "hidden by the leaves". "Bushido" = Way of the Warrior/Samurai

The more you know

It's funny that someone is getting tactical advice from people who were fighting with swords and spears in the 18th century. They had first class muskets in the 16th and early 17th centuries, but the tokugawa outlawed them after they got in control of the country. It was "unaristocratic" to have a bunch of peasants mowing down knights and lords with firearms. When they were reintroduced in the 19th century the Samurai refused to adopt the new technology, and were completely destroyed. Tactically, it was less than brilliant.

So there's actually two levels of silliness here. The first is what the Samurai did. The second is what you do when you read them and think they're going to tell you how to play 40k.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

I would love to 'think' or 'sage' my opponent to death with abused quotes, but shooting his stuff is far more effective.

Said the uncautious player before he got utterly crushed by his opponent who actually used his mind.

Thought the sagely player before the game even started.

See, I can do your sagely hob-nobbery, twirl-aroundedness too.

You know the difference between a Tallarn and his horse?

The horse smells better.

GreatGunz wrote:It's funny that someone is getting tactical advice from people who were fighting with swords and spears in the 18th century. They had first class muskets in the 16th and early 17th centuries, but the tokugawa outlawed them after they got in control of the country. It was "unaristocratic" to have a bunch of peasants mowing down knights and lords with firearms. When they were reintroduced in the 19th century the Samurai refused to adopt the new technology, and were completely destroyed. Tactically, it was less than brilliant.

So there's actually two levels of silliness here. The first is what the Samurai did. The second is what you do when you read them and think they're going to tell you how to play 40k.

I'd take a Yumi over a 16th-century smooth-bore matchlock any day. (And the British & USA were also fighting with swords in the 18th century. And the 19th.)

azazel the cat wrote:(And the British & USA were also fighting with swords in the 18th century. And the 19th.)

No they were carrying swords because it was tradition. They were fighting with muskets, rifles, and cannon. When traditionally-armed forces went up against forces with the latest European technology in the late 1860s, the former were completely destroyed. Which is OT but true nonetheless.

Thought the sagely player before the game even started.

A player that uses his mind would not assume pregame, that he already won. This would be as uncautious as saying shoot = win.
The simpler the better, hm?
As many others said: Just parroting some quotes and still doing the same bs is worthless. You have to find an own way of dealing with it. That can be "shooting is better". Maybe its your style. I shouldnt question that then.

You know the difference between a Tallarn and his horse?

The horse smells better

Good job, you actually tracked a tallarn and his horse.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

Thought the sagely player before the game even started.

A player that uses his mind would not assume pregame, that he already won. This would be as uncautious as saying shoot = win.
The simpler the better, hm?
As many others said: Just parroting some quotes and still doing the same bs is worthless. You have to find an own way of dealing with it. That can be "shooting is better". Maybe its your style. I shouldnt question that then.

After a brief minute of reflection, I think my thought process on war comes from my most favoirte Tyrant, Vlad the Impaler. Intimidation first, then running headlong into your army, butchering them to a man, and then tatooing your arse so my henchmen knows which pole to grease.

GreatGunz wrote:It's funny that someone is getting tactical advice from people who were fighting with swords and spears in the 18th century. They had first class muskets in the 16th and early 17th centuries, but the tokugawa outlawed them after they got in control of the country. It was "unaristocratic" to have a bunch of peasants mowing down knights and lords with firearms. When they were reintroduced in the 19th century the Samurai refused to adopt the new technology, and were completely destroyed. Tactically, it was less than brilliant.

So there's actually two levels of silliness here. The first is what the Samurai did. The second is what you do when you read them and think they're going to tell you how to play 40k.

Yep. That's right. No one in 40k uses swords. Or spears. In fact, rightfully so in the grim darkness of the far future (where there is only WAR) there aren't even RULES for Close combat, because no one even... wait. What?

Also, Cavalrymen and infantrymen were still using swords and spears into the 20th century. In fact there were still SPEAR WIELDING CAVALRY CHARGES in WWI. There were still units of them existing into WWII, but I don't think an actual charge was ever made, as I'm pretty sure the Germans cut them to ribbons with MG fire before they ever got close. It was more tradition to carry swords, sure, but ask Marines at Pelelieu or Iwo Jima if the Japanese soldiers just shot at them. Bayonet charges still happened into Vietnam, and though you may argue that it's just a knife stuck onto the end of a gun and not REALLY melee combat (that's what happens in 40k for many units anyway) the fighting style is more akin to bladed staff or spear fighting.

However, discussing spear ane melee tactics is less helpful as certain stances and manuvers are abstracted by the melee system. The real ideas that will help you are how to get your opponant into a disadvantaged situation so that you can win.

schadenfreude wrote:That being said probably the best 1 line quote that can be pulled from the art of war is "All war is deception"

This.

GreatGunz wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:(And the British & USA were also fighting with swords in the 18th century. And the 19th.)

No they were carrying swords because it was tradition. They were fighting with muskets, rifles, and cannon. When traditionally-armed forces went up against forces with the latest European technology in the late 1860s, the former were completely destroyed. Which is OT but true nonetheless.

Try telling that to the British who fought at the Battle of Isandlwana. 20,000 Zulus armed mostly with spears and shields destroyed a force of 1,800 British soldiers who were equipped with the vastly superior weaponry including rifles, cannons and rocket batteries. The Zulus only suffered around 1,000 casualties, the British lost 1,300.

^Well, too be fair, they were outnumbered eleven-to-one, and a good musket man can only fire about 3 shots each minute, and they can't all fire at the same time, and the guns were terribly innaccurate at the time, and, well, yeah. Sucks to be them. As Joseph Stalin once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own."

When you're that surrounded, every round fired will find a target.

Surely as an Ork player you've seen that.

loota boy wrote:^Well, too be fair, they were outnumbered eleven-to-one, and a good musket man can only fire about 3 shots each minute, and they can't all fire at the same time, and the guns were terribly innaccurate at the time, and, well, yeah. Sucks to be them. As Joseph Stalin once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own."

Lever-action rifles in this case, not muskets. Looking at about 12 shots a minute, with good accuracy.

Although to be fair, the Zulu's had huge amounts of stolen rifles/muskets. The vast majority of British casulties were from gun shots, not spears. Older equipment but as you say Quantity over Quality.

loota boy wrote:^Well, too be fair, they were outnumbered eleven-to-one, and a good musket man can only fire about 3 shots each minute, and they can't all fire at the same time, and the guns were terribly innaccurate at the time, and, well, yeah. Sucks to be them. As Joseph Stalin once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own."

Breech loaded rifles, not muskets. A trained British soldier could fire around 10 to 12 shots a minute. Plus using the British tactic of forming into two ranks with the front firing a volley, then the rear firing a volley whilst the front is reloading they could maintain an impressive and sustained rate of fire until they run out of ammunition (which they eventually did).

Nagashek wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:It's funny that someone is getting tactical advice from people who were fighting with swords and spears in the 18th century. They had first class muskets in the 16th and early 17th centuries, but the tokugawa outlawed them after they got in control of the country. It was "unaristocratic" to have a bunch of peasants mowing down knights and lords with firearms. When they were reintroduced in the 19th century the Samurai refused to adopt the new technology, and were completely destroyed. Tactically, it was less than brilliant.

So there's actually two levels of silliness here. The first is what the Samurai did. The second is what you do when you read them and think they're going to tell you how to play 40k.

Yep. That's right. No one in 40k uses swords. Or spears. In fact, rightfully so in the grim darkness of the far future (where there is only WAR) there aren't even RULES for Close combat, because no one even... wait. What?

This is so unbelievably silly that I'm not even going to try to explain it to you. Actual melee doesn't have anything to do with 40k.

Also, Cavalrymen and infantrymen were still using swords and spears into the 20th century. In fact there were still SPEAR WIELDING CAVALRY CHARGES in WWI. There were still units of them existing into WWII, but I don't think an actual charge was ever made, as I'm pretty sure the Germans cut them to ribbons with MG fire before they ever got close.

Right. Exactly. So what the hell are you talking about?

It was more tradition to carry swords, sure, but ask Marines at Pelelieu or Iwo Jima if the Japanese soldiers just shot at them. Bayonet charges still happened into Vietnam, and though you may argue that it's just a knife stuck onto the end of a gun and not REALLY melee combat (that's what happens in 40k for many units anyway) the fighting style is more akin to bladed staff or spear fighting.

And again, they were cut to pieces. So again, what the hell are you talking about?

However, discussing spear ane melee tactics is less helpful as certain stances and manuvers are abstracted by the melee system.

Something I'm sure you know nothing about.

The real ideas that will help you are how to get your opponant into a disadvantaged situation so that you can win.

Which the author of Hagakure knew nothing about, because he was never in a battle in his entire life.

Look I'm getting tired of going round and round with you. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, so go ahead and get in the last word and let's be done with this. It's my fault for encouraging you to think critically in the first place.

trollol.

Although Nagashek was a bit

A Town Called Malus wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:(And the British & USA were also fighting with swords in the 18th century. And the 19th.)

No they were carrying swords because it was tradition. They were fighting with muskets, rifles, and cannon. When traditionally-armed forces went up against forces with the latest European technology in the late 1860s, the former were completely destroyed. Which is OT but true nonetheless.

Try telling that to the British who fought at the Battle of Isandlwana. 20,000 Zulus armed mostly with spears and shields destroyed a force of 1,800 British soldiers who were equipped with the vastly superior weaponry including rifles, cannons and rocket batteries.

Uhhhhh.... what's your point? That modern armies occasionally resorted to fighting hand to hand out of desperation? That poorly equipped armies can occasionally win against better equipped foes, when they outnumber them ten to one? Yes those things are true. You're very clever. But was there something you wanted to contribute?

GreatGunz wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:(And the British & USA were also fighting with swords in the 18th century. And the 19th.)

No they were carrying swords because it was tradition. They were fighting with muskets, rifles, and cannon. When traditionally-armed forces went up against forces with the latest European technology in the late 1860s, the former were completely destroyed. Which is OT but true nonetheless.

Try telling that to the British who fought at the Battle of Isandlwana. 20,000 Zulus armed mostly with spears and shields destroyed a force of 1,800 British soldiers who were equipped with the vastly superior weaponry including rifles, cannons and rocket batteries.

Uhhhhh.... what's your point? That modern armies occasionally resorted to fighting hand to hand out of desperation? That poorly equipped armies can occasionally win against better equipped foes, when they outnumber them ten to one? Yes those things are true. You're very clever. But was there something you wanted to contribute?

The trolloling continues!

Jihallah wrote:trollol.

Although Nagashek was a bit

Indeed. I'm starting to think it's my fault for carrying on the conversation.

Oh you are a special little bronyimeanboy

GreatGunz wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:(And the British & USA were also fighting with swords in the 18th century. And the 19th.)

No they were carrying swords because it was tradition. They were fighting with muskets, rifles, and cannon. When traditionally-armed forces went up against forces with the latest European technology in the late 1860s, the former were completely destroyed. Which is OT but true nonetheless.

Try telling that to the British who fought at the Battle of Isandlwana. 20,000 Zulus armed mostly with spears and shields destroyed a force of 1,800 British soldiers who were equipped with the vastly superior weaponry including rifles, cannons and rocket batteries.

Uhhhhh.... what's your point? That modern armies occasionally resorted to fighting hand to hand out of desperation? That poorly equipped armies can occasionally win against better equipped foes, when they outnumber them ten to one? Yes those things are true. You're very clever. But was there something you wanted to contribute?

I was just pointing out that your claim that when "traditionally armed forces went up against forces with the latest European technology, the former were completely destroyed" was false. No need to get all aggressive about it

Jihallah wrote:Oh you are a special little bronyimeanboy

Hey. No brony insults. Counts as ad hominem, you don't wanna lose an argument you had in the bag over something as minor as that, do you?

I see as much point in arguing with him as I do with a brick wall.

"I never enlighten anyone who has not been driven to distraction by trying to understand a difficulty or who has not got into a frenzy trying to put his ideas into words.
When I have pointed out one corner of a square to anyone and he does not come back with the other three, I will not point it out to him a second time"
-The analects (Confucius)

And I thought the "special" was the bit people would take exception to, not "brony" lol

GreatGunz wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:(And the British & USA were also fighting with swords in the 18th century. And the 19th.)

No they were carrying swords because it was tradition. They were fighting with muskets, rifles, and cannon. When traditionally-armed forces went up against forces with the latest European technology in the late 1860s, the former were completely destroyed. Which is OT but true nonetheless.

I think you should read about Italy's adventures in Ethiopia.

Also, I think you should brush up on your history. Your own War For Independence, and your Civil War, for example. My understanding is that the sabre and bayonet factored quite heavily there. And those were the 18th & 19th centuries, respectively.

GreatGunz, either start Loving and Tolerating, or you can just get a new Avatar right now.

It's fine to argue about a point, but you're starting to attack the person making the comments instead of limiting your replies to the comment itself.

Some people find that it helps them play strategy games if they read and ponder on the wisdom of ancient (and not so ancient) strategists, and some people don't. It's all good.

azazel the cat wrote:I think you should read about Italy's adventures in Ethiopia.

the Ethiopians lost that war. You're the one who needs to do some reading.

Also, I think you should brush up on your history. Your own War For Independence, and your Civil War, for example. My understanding is that the sabre and bayonet factored quite heavily there.

Words fail me.

GreatGunz wrote:

Nagashek wrote:

GreatGunz wrote:It's funny that someone is getting tactical advice from people who were fighting with swords and spears in the 18th century. They had first class muskets in the 16th and early 17th centuries, but the tokugawa outlawed them after they got in control of the country. It was "unaristocratic" to have a bunch of peasants mowing down knights and lords with firearms. When they were reintroduced in the 19th century the Samurai refused to adopt the new technology, and were completely destroyed. Tactically, it was less than brilliant.

So there's actually two levels of silliness here. The first is what the Samurai did. The second is what you do when you read them and think they're going to tell you how to play 40k.

Yep. That's right. No one in 40k uses swords. Or spears. In fact, rightfully so in the grim darkness of the far future (where there is only WAR) there aren't even RULES for Close combat, because no one even... wait. What?

This is so unbelievably silly that I'm not even going to try to explain it to you. Actual melee doesn't have anything to do with 40k.

I'm being facetious. You are talking about sword type tactical advice being irrelevant because range weaponry were in use. Yet ranged weapons and melee weapons still being in use at the same time is supported in history. And it happens in 40k. So your assertion that tactical and strategic doctrines for supporting melee has no use in other eras (See especially 40k) is utterly rediculous. Melee factors VERY heavily in 40k, oft times more so than ranged attacks. Therefore, understanding melee tactics (for manuver and support) from multiple eras is still germaine.

Also, Cavalrymen and infantrymen were still using swords and spears into the 20th century. In fact there were still SPEAR WIELDING CAVALRY CHARGES in WWI. There were still units of them existing into WWII, but I don't think an actual charge was ever made, as I'm pretty sure the Germans cut them to ribbons with MG fire before they ever got close.

Right. Exactly. So what the hell are you talking about?

You implied that the mixture of melee and ranged weaponry in war was a thing of the (distant) past. I have provided evidence to the contrary.

It was more tradition to carry swords, sure, but ask Marines at Pelelieu or Iwo Jima if the Japanese soldiers just shot at them. Bayonet charges still happened into Vietnam, and though you may argue that it's just a knife stuck onto the end of a gun and not REALLY melee combat (that's what happens in 40k for many units anyway) the fighting style is more akin to bladed staff or spear fighting.

And again, they were cut to pieces. So again, what the hell are you talking about?

Who was cut to pieces? Everyone involved? Because that is the correct answer. That's what happens during a bayonet charge.

However, discussing spear ane melee tactics is less helpful as certain stances and manuvers are abstracted by the melee system.

Something I'm sure you know nothing about.

There is an old saying about assuming. But since you seem to think the words of an older age have no bearing on the present, that's "something I'm sure you know nothing about."

The real ideas that will help you are how to get your opponant into a disadvantaged situation so that you can win.

Which the author of Hagakure knew nothing about, because he was never in a battle in his entire life.

Look I'm getting tired of going round and round with you. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, so go ahead and get in the last word and let's be done with this. It's my fault for encouraging you to think critically in the first place.

You don't need to ever be in a battle to know that some things are clearly suicidal and others will work very well. Some tactics you know instinctively, others are obvious once pointed out to you. You are making it sound as though I think theory makes you an expert. It doesn't. But it can give you a very good guidline. But then, that's what I've been trying to explain to you this entire time (IE regurgitation of ideas is worthless, application is all that matters), and it's clear that you are just trolling.

Jihallah wrote:trollol.

Although Nagashek was a bit

Nagashek was being intentionally facetious. Hopefully I made that a little more obvious. Sorry, sometimes I respond in a non-linear, stream of consciousness sort of fashion as my brain works a little faster than I can type. My foot does something similar when it jumps into my mouth...

GreatGunz wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:I think you should read about Italy's adventures in Ethiopia.

the Ethiopians lost that war. You're the one who needs to do some reading.

Also, I think you should brush up on your history. Your own War For Independence, and your Civil War, for example. My understanding is that the sabre and bayonet factored quite heavily there.

Words fail me.

No, it would seem that your ability to research has failed you.

Here, let me help you. I think you'll find that Italy, with their modern rifles, managed to lose to peasants in a feudal system.

Sabres!
Dragoons!
Sabres in action!
More sabres in action!

I really hate to use wikipedia examples, but I don't know if you have access to academic journals or not. Anyway, it really wasn't until after the Indian Wars that the US abandoned the use of swords. Hence, my point that swords were in use even by the end of the 19th century. As for Europe, the same holds true, and as was the case of Ethiopia during the age of colonialism the modern rifles did not always win the day. So if you want to try and retort with a series of emoticons, that's perfectly fine. I'm always happy to educate people about world history.

"Kill people, burn sh*t, **** school."
-Tyler the Creator

I can't believe this trolloling is still going.

It's just turned into a bitch slap argument

And no one has alerted a mod!

*pulls out popcorn* tell him his mum's a slag, that'll get him worked up

Personally I like The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates:

Specifically - 'Pillage, then burn.' and 'There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'reload.'' but I find several are often relevant

Ovion wrote:
3. An ordnance technician at a dead run outranks everybody.

Yes

azazel the cat wrote:
I really hate to use wikipedia examples, but I don't know if you have access to academic journals or not. Anyway, it really wasn't until after the Indian Wars that the US abandoned the use of swords. Hence, my point that swords were in use even by the end of the 19th century. As for Europe, the same holds true, and as was the case of Ethiopia during the age of colonialism the modern rifles did not always win the day. So if you want to try and retort with a series of emoticons, that's perfectly fine. I'm always happy to educate people about world history.

Just wanted to call you out on this.

You mention both the AWI and the ACW. In the AWI, bayonet and swords wounds were exceedingly rare, oddly enough, but here's why - most engagements would feature two sides advancing towards each other, stopping at times to discharge their weapons. When one side or the other finally 'fixed bayonet's and charged - usually the British, since such a thing needed the discipline of a trained army - the other would break and run. Sensible, since the thing to do when you've got a wall of pointy bits coming towards you usually isn't to run right at it.

As for the ACW, well, you'll find that actual sword and bayonet use was essentially, well, useless. With the minie ball and easily available rifled muskets, and less-so breach loading rifles, and repeating rifles, any sort of charge was near-suicidal. 'Cavalry' in the traditional sense of men on horseback swinging sabers and yelling 'Tally-ho!' was only really found in the Union, and only in the beginning of the war. Charging at a line of infantry that can put out blistering amounts of lead isn't, again, a sensible thing to do, and remarkably some commanders actually managed to figure that out before the war ended. Cavalry was more often used as either the eyes of the army in a reconnaissance role, or simply as mounted infantry.

You'll read accounts of commanders leading a charge with their sword held high (often with their hat on top). And you'll also probably notice that these men were generally killed pretty quickly when peppered with lead.

I won't argue the Ethiopian bit, since history has shown time and time again that a technologically inferior force is perfectly capable of defeating a technologically superior opponent, especially if the enemy is overconfident and you have numbers on your side.

infinite_array wrote:As for the ACW, well, you'll find that actual sword and bayonet use was essentially, well, useless. With the minie ball and easily available rifled muskets, and less-so breach loading rifles, and repeating rifles, any sort of charge was near-suicidal. 'Cavalry' in the traditional sense of men on horseback swinging sabers and yelling 'Tally-ho!' was only really found in the Union, and only in the beginning of the war. Charging at a line of infantry that can put out blistering amounts of lead isn't, again, a sensible thing to do, and remarkably some commanders actually managed to figure that out before the war ended. Cavalry was more often used as either the eyes of the army in a reconnaissance role, or simply as mounted infantry.

You'll read accounts of commanders leading a charge with their sword held high (often with their hat on top). And you'll also probably notice that these men were generally killed pretty quickly when peppered with lead.

B-but... It's so heroic!

infinite_array wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:
I really hate to use wikipedia examples, but I don't know if you have access to academic journals or not. Anyway, it really wasn't until after the Indian Wars that the US abandoned the use of swords. Hence, my point that swords were in use even by the end of the 19th century. As for Europe, the same holds true, and as was the case of Ethiopia during the age of colonialism the modern rifles did not always win the day. So if you want to try and retort with a series of emoticons, that's perfectly fine. I'm always happy to educate people about world history.

Just wanted to call you out on this.

You mention both the AWI and the ACW. In the AWI, bayonet and swords wounds were exceedingly rare, oddly enough, but here's why - most engagements would feature two sides advancing towards each other, stopping at times to discharge their weapons. When one side or the other finally 'fixed bayonet's and charged - usually the British, since such a thing needed the discipline of a trained army - the other would break and run. Sensible, since the thing to do when you've got a wall of pointy bits coming towards you usually isn't to run right at it.

As for the ACW, well, you'll find that actual sword and bayonet use was essentially, well, useless. With the minie ball and easily available rifled muskets, and less-so breach loading rifles, and repeating rifles, any sort of charge was near-suicidal. 'Cavalry' in the traditional sense of men on horseback swinging sabers and yelling 'Tally-ho!' was only really found in the Union, and only in the beginning of the war. Charging at a line of infantry that can put out blistering amounts of lead isn't, again, a sensible thing to do, and remarkably some commanders actually managed to figure that out before the war ended. Cavalry was more often used as either the eyes of the army in a reconnaissance role, or simply as mounted infantry.

You'll read accounts of commanders leading a charge with their sword held high (often with their hat on top). And you'll also probably notice that these men were generally killed pretty quickly when peppered with lead.

I won't argue the Ethiopian bit, since history has shown time and time again that a technologically inferior force is perfectly capable of defeating a technologically superior opponent, especially if the enemy is overconfident and you have numbers on your side.

I don't really consider this 'calling me' on anything. I didn't claim that it was a cutting-edge tactic (punny!); I merely pointed out that it happened on several occasions, even at that late date in history. And cited examples, in the form of the Dragoons and the two battls that I posted links to.

However, you are correct that the emergence of the repeating rifle was generally the end of the sword as a go-to weapon. And I think this is quite amazing that this has all come from my one comment of "I'll take a Yumi bow over a smooth-bore matchlock any day" (specifically meant to refer to the matchlock's lack of accuracy, exceptionally slow rate of fire, and the fact that it was the world's first gun to feature the "gets hot!" USR )

I can't even tell what is being argued here, at least in relation to 40K or tactical advice - That melee does not belong in 40k? That tactics coined by ancient warriors no longer apply in battle? That the 40K universe is somehow like a civil war battlefield and thus melee units can be disregarded? That one should not base their army around rough riders?

What does the use, or lack of use, of cavalry charges in the civil war have to do with either playing 40K or applying tactical advice to 40K? Plenty no doubt, but without a premise to build the debate around, all we are doing is reading differing anecdotes about warfare in Colonial times being bandied about.

Hollowman wrote:I can't even tell what is being argued here, at least in relation to 40K or tactical advice - That melee does not belong in 40k? That tactics coined by ancient warriors no longer apply in battle? That the 40K universe is somehow like a civil war battlefield and thus melee units can be disregarded? That one should not base their army around rough riders?

What does the use, or lack of use, of cavalry charges in the civil war have to do with either playing 40K or applying tactical advice to 40K? Plenty no doubt, but without a premise to build the debate around, all we are doing is reading differing anecdotes about warfare in Colonial times being bandied about.

No, I think you've generally got a grasp on it so far.

You never know when close combat might be handy...like for the Brits in 2004 in Afghanistan

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?98976-Outstanding-story-of-British-Bayonet-Charge-in-Basra

That's a lot of completely different questions loaded in there, each of which deserves a focused essay. For instance - Does melee belong in 40K?

Probably. Historically, missile weapons predominate when armor is weak, and when new advances in armor arrive melee weapons rise up again. Ancient armies started out with maces, axes and short swords, then bows basically took over, allowing killing from range and dominating the period of ancient Egypt and Assyria. When better armor developed bows and slings were relegated to skirmishing and harassing while swords and axes predominated. Then longbows and advanced crossbows appear, begin to dominate, and then again drop out of central use as heavy armor appears and heavy two handed melee weapons capable of penetrating them come into wider use. Heavy armor and melee weapons coexisted for a much longer period of time than usually realized before guns became powerful enough to make melee obsolete for the moment.

We have sort of dropped out of this loop today, in that nobody really uses armor at all. This is not the case in the 40K universe - power armor, terminator armor and artificer armor shrug off nearly all missile weapons but the most powerful and expensive, while power swords, eviscerators and the like can easily penetrate the heaviest armor. Battles are fought at close range. Melee weapons have a role again, the same role they have always had - penetrating armor that massed missile weapons have a difficult time opening up. A Space marine against eldar guardians is a unit of dismounted knights against shortbowmen - they can reliably wade in and take their position without getting seriously wounded. Back up shortbowmen with halberds and you have a far more effective fighting force, even if a halberd has all the range of a extra long stick (put your eldar assault unit of choice in place of halberds).

azazel the cat wrote:No, it would seem that your ability to research has failed you.

Indeed?

Here, let me help you. I think you'll find that Italy, with their modern rifles, managed to lose to peasants in a feudal system.

Here, let me help you I think you'll find that Italy, with their modern rifles, annexed the whole country.

Sabres!
Dragoons!
Sabres in action!
More sabres in action!
I really hate to use wikipedia examples, but I don't know if you have access to academic journals or not. Anyway, it really wasn't until after the Indian Wars that the US abandoned the use of swords. Hence, my point that swords were in use even by the end of the 19th century. As for Europe, the same holds true, and as was the case of Ethiopia during the age of colonialism the modern rifles did not always win the day. So if you want to try and retort with a series of emoticons, that's perfectly fine. I'm always happy to educate people about world history.

Fortunately for you, I too enjoy educating people about history.
http://http://www.historynet.com/weaponry-the-rifle-musket-and-the-mini-ball.htm
"The days of successful frontal assaults by infantry and cavalry were over; defenders armed with the new rifle-musket could fire from a safe place and knock down attacker after attacker before they got close enough to do damage."
"The combination of the rifle-musket and minié bullet also made the bayonet nearly obsolete."
"In fact, very few Civil War surgeons reported bayonet wounds. During Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant's bloody campaign against Confederate General Robert E. Lee in the summer of 1864, for example, Union medical directors recorded only 37 bayonet wounds. Of the several hundred thousand wounded men treated in Union hospitals over the course of the war, surgeons noted only 922 bayonet wounds!"

http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/means/cold_steele.htm
It is a truism that by the time of the Civil War, the bayonet had outlived its usefulness in combat. Yet like many truisms, it tells only part of the story. Certainly the bayonet was not used in the 1860s as it had been before then. Up through the war with Mexico, the last conflict fought with smoothbore muskets, the bayonet's value was as a "shock tactic" to disorganize the defenders and take the ground, but not necessarily to win by killing. Men would often break and run from an attack of gleaming bayonets. Most, if not all, of the casualties would be caused by rifle fire, but in a sense the victory belonged to the bayonets.

The Civil War started out with just that tactic in mind, but the superior range and accuracy of the rifled musket, developed between the wars, changed everything. The charging line would be stopped in its tracks before it was close enough to use bayonets. It was only at times of desperation, when a unit under heavy attack ran out of ammunition and the options were to turn and run or make a desperate charge with cold steel, as did the 20th Maine at Gettysburg, that a bayonet charge would be ordered.

http://www.19thalabama.org/cwfacts.html
Most infantry rifles were equipped with bayonets, but very few men wounded by bayonet showed up at hospitals. The conclusion was that the bayonet was not a lethal weapon. The explanation probably lay in the fact that opposing soldiers did not often actually come to grips and, when they did, were prone to use their rifles as clubs.

Since we're all so gung-ho about Isalwandha, I thought I'd remind you all of Rorke's Drift, Ulundi, Omdurman, Woosung, Whampoa, Tseekee, Ningpo, Gujarat, Sobraon, Fallen Timbers, Wounded Knee, Tipecanoo, Bad Axe, Wisconsin Heights... well, you get the idea. Or maybe you don't, so let's keep going - Neches, Little Robe Creek, North Fork of the Red River, Chusan, Chuenpee, Prome, Danubyu, Minhla, Tamai..... whew! That's alot of dead guys with spears and swords!

But if that doesn't convince you, look at the numbers involved in the engagements. At Isalanwandha, the Zulus outnumbered the British ten to one, and took more casualties than the British did in the course of the fighting. At Ulundi the British were outnumbered two to one, and inflicted TEN TIMES the number of casualties that they suffered. Obviously a battle like Ulundi mattered more for the outcome of the war than a battle like Isalawandha. And the final results of the wars were never in doubt. The Mahdists were crushed in North Africa, the Zulu in South Africa, the Mughals, Sikhs, and Maratha in India, the Qing and the Boxers in China, the American Plains Indians in the United States, the Tokugawa in Japan, and on and on and on it went. Do you think it was some kind of accident that European armies conquered the world in the 18th and 19th centuries? Or is it possible, just maybe, that rifles and cannons are better weapons than swords and spears?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollowman wrote:I can't even tell what is being argued here, at least in relation to 40K or tactical advice - That melee does not belong in 40k? That tactics coined by ancient warriors no longer apply in battle? That the 40K universe is somehow like a civil war battlefield and thus melee units can be disregarded? That one should not base their army around rough riders?

What does the use, or lack of use, of cavalry charges in the civil war have to do with either playing 40K or applying tactical advice to 40K? Plenty no doubt, but without a premise to build the debate around, all we are doing is reading differing anecdotes about warfare in Colonial times being bandied about.

I agree we've strayed a bit. My original point was that Art of War, On War, and Hagakure are manuals of strategy and tactics that were written for particular moments in history. While they do have some generalized applicability to games of strategy and to war in other epochs, it's basically silly to try to learn about 40k by reading them, for alot of reasons. IIRC I pointed out that melees have been obsolete in modern combat for about 300 years, and a couple of people who don't know anything about history cried foul. I agree that the whole conversation is basically silly at this point, and frankly I'm about done with it.

@GreatGunz: Thank you for proving my point. (my point being that the sword was still in use even during the 18th & 19th centuries. I never once said that swords defined the age, merely that they were still around)

And you really should read that wikipedia article you posted. I referenced the Frist Italo-Ethiopian War to illustrate the point that swords and spears will sometimes win out over rifles, contrary to your sweeping generalization. And given that example, my point still stands. I have no idea why you keep referencing the Second Italo-Ethiopean War, as it was fought 40 years later when both sides were operating exclusively with modern firearms. (however, by that pattern, Ethiopia has a better track record of fighting with swords against guns than they do of fighting with guns against guns)

So, I'm happy to keep proving you wrong, but it's starting to get boring for me as I keep having to remind you of the point. If you really want to continue, please try to keep up.

EDIT:

GreatGunz wrote:

Mordiggian wrote:Applying a text, such as Sun Tsu, to a situation for which it was not specifically written, such as a wargame, is called interpretation.

It's called a pretentious waste of time. 40k is a game. Just enjoy it for what it is. If you want a game of deep strategy, play chess. 40k ain't it.

However, I do agree with you 100% here. Also, people need to stop quoting the Hagakure. It is not a system of tactics, it is a book of philosophy and a guide to proper social behaviour. I think it's being mistaken for the Go Rin No Sho.

GreatGunz wrote:I pointed out that melees have been obsolete in modern combat for about 300 years, and a couple of people who don't know anything about history cried foul. I agree that the whole conversation is basically silly at this point, and frankly I'm about done with it.

And I merely (although successfully) pointed out that it's not really 300 years; but rather more like 100-150 years. It really wasn't until the percussion cap came about that melee combat became pointless. And I'm sorry to hear that I don't know anything about history. I must have just found my history degree while walking home one day.

No, I think I've pretty much made my point. If you want to pretend that you were arguing something sensible, instead of something plainly silly, I'm ok with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I must have just found my history degree while walking home one day

For all the good that degree did you, you'd mineaswell have.

What I cannot smite with words I shall smite under the iron threads of my tanks!

GreatGunz appears to be blatantly trolling this thread, which is both surprising and disappointing to me. I haven't been here all that long, but this site has always appeared blissfully troll-free. Anyway, it was a good thread with a lot of interesting and useful quotes coming up, until it got completely hijacked.

Want to know the best way to kill a Troll? Ignore it. Don't acknowledge it. Do not think about it do -not- even breathe. And stay perfectly still.

Even though, he's not really trolling just waving his member around, which is bound to happen when history students get together and constantly strive to know more then the other.

Shadowbrand wrote:Want to know the best way to kill a Troll? Ignore it. Don't acknowledge it. Do not think about it do -not- even breathe. And stay perfectly still.

Even though, he's not really trolling just waving his member around, which is bound to happen when history students get together and constantly strive to know more then the other.

No, at this point I've come to the conclusion that he's trolling, because the only other explanation is at least a partial detachment from reality. So I'm going to bow out at this point, as my interest began to wane several posts ago, when any actual debate degenerated into replies of "nuh-uh! ".

Needless to say, though, that Sun Tsu's quotes really do not apply to 40k due to its lack of resource-based strategy and lack of deception.

Whenever someone gets quote-y, I just remember things like the following:

Hannibal was out generaled by Scipio in the end, who channelled his elephants through lanes in his formations.
Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" in an effort to curry favour with the group that had ousted him from power. It was not successful.
Ghengis Khan, according to some stories, died falling off his horse.
Some argue that Sun Tzu never really existed in the first place.

Most of the people who are commonly name-dropped lost the failures that made them human to the march of time. That said, they do have useful things to teach of course. The difficulty is sorting actual value from the things you are bludgeoned with by the legions of armchair generals in the world. For anything I use, I use in my own head, and the quotes I like typically aren't particularly tactical or proscriptive. I prefer quotes that help me center my thinking, or defeat frustrations. For example,

"In every battle there comes a time when both sides consider themselves beaten, then he who continues the attack wins. " - Ulysses S. Grant.

I like Grant, because in the recounting of the American Civil War, he'll always be in the shadow of Lee in terms of generals. Despite the fact that his dogged aggressiveness and stubbornness ultimately ground down his opponent.

I am also very fond of G.K. Chesterton, who was not a general by any means. However, he has some quotes I find useful. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/gilbert_k_chesterton_2.html

And, Abraham Lincoln, because he had an amusing way of stating simple things that helps me frame things right. (Though, the applying them to wargaming takes a little explination at times!)

"I can make more generals, but horses cost money. " - I take this one out of context, I admit. Basically, it is meta to the game for me- our hobby is full of people who will tell you what you should do with your army to win, but in the end, you're the one paying for the miniatures and time, not them. Advice is free. Good choices are not.

"Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. " - Plan well, build well. It makes the execution so much smoother.

"I don't like that man. I must get to know him better." - A good quote for life in general, but in the context of our discussion here-if an army or tactic seems brokenly OP or really annoying, the best first step is to understand what makes that army tick, learn how it works better, before drawing a final conclusion.

GreatGunz wrote:

I must have just found my history degree while walking home one day

For all the good that degree did you, you'd mineaswell have.

HAH! 'E walked into that 'e did that's comedy!

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:GreatGunz appears to be blatantly trolling this thread, which is both surprising and disappointing to me. I haven't been here all that long, but this site has always appeared blissfully troll-free

That's why they are falling into it, they are too naive since they don't usually have to deal with trolls. Just sit back have some popcorn and wait see how long it takes for a mod

azazel the cat wrote:

Shadowbrand wrote:Want to know the best way to kill a Troll? Ignore it. Don't acknowledge it. Do not think about it do -not- even breathe. And stay perfectly still.

Even though, he's not really trolling just waving his member around, which is bound to happen when history students get together and constantly strive to know more then the other.

No, at this point I've come to the conclusion that he's trolling, because the only other explanation is at least a partial detachment from reality..

So 2 pages ago when I was saying "trollolol", were you all like "naaaah. He'll listen to my reason! He might be trolloling everyone else, but I will make him see the light of reason!"

Jihallah wrote:
So 2 pages ago when I was saying "trollolol", were you all like "naaaah. He'll listen to my reason! He might be trolloling everyone else, but I will make him see the light of reason!"

No, I'd say it's more that I didn't pay any attention to your post insofar as his responses to my point were on-topic and not assinine. Right up until he realized that he was wrong, and claimed that I was arguing a point which I was not. That would be at the top of this page.

Oh, and posting "trollolol" is akin to shouting "no, don't run upstairs!" during a slasher movie: it has no effect, and acting smug about it just looks silly.

azazel the cat wrote:
Oh, and posting "trollolol" is akin to shouting "no, don't run upstairs!" during a slasher movie: it has no effect, and acting smug about it just looks silly.

Oh you do it too. Everyone does it. That's the point of slasher flicks- "Oh if that was me I would have totally done this/that/the other "

azazel the cat wrote:

Oh, and posting "trollolol" is akin to shouting "no, don't run upstairs!" during a slasher movie: it has no effect, and acting smug about it just looks silly.

It allows those of us who already thought so to discover that someone else shares our opinion.


Anyway, what other books or philosophies do people bring to the table? I gotta sat I'm impressed with Grimdark's GK Chesterton, because that's way out of the box.

Grant didn't win through tactics. He just fought battles to a tie, and any pointless meatgrinder of a battle=union victory because the south could not replace losses.

Hannibal didn't lose battles in Europe when he invaded. Scipio's great plan was to not fight him. In the end Hannibal won every battle and lost the war.

Let's get back on track..

My submission for Books full of battlefield wisdom: The Infantryman's Uplifting Primer

This hallowed tome is all you need, anything else is to be considered Heretical.

All the advise you need is there from taking cover (improve your chances by reciting the Litany of Stealth), to the proper method of Bayonetting an Ork.

"There is one rule when fighting the tyranid: shoot the big ones."

"There are no secrets to success. It is the result of preparation, hard work, learning from failure."

~Colin Powell

I recently started 40k, and I don't expect to win many games. But every time I lose a game of 40k or fantasy, you can bet that I'll try and figure out what I did right, what I did wrong, what performed well, and what underperformed. I'll make sure that I take note of my enemy's play style, and find out how to turn it to my advantage later on.

I can see how some quotes don't literally apply to 40k, but you just need an open mind. I enjoyed figuring out how many of the quotes already posted here could affect my game.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:GreatGunz appears to be blatantly trolling this thread, which is both surprising and disappointing to me. I haven't been here all that long, but this site has always appeared blissfully troll-free. Anyway, it was a good thread with a lot of interesting and useful quotes coming up, until it got completely hijacked.

Can you please iluminate me why discussing the sharply declining use of melee weapons in early modern warfare ( which relates to the question if the wisdom of a bunch of ancient generals can still be found useful ) is trolling?

schadenfreude wrote:Grant didn't win through tactics. He just fought battles to a tie, and any pointless meatgrinder of a battle=union victory because the south could not replace losses.

Grant won through a combination of passable, if bloody tactics, and effective strategy. He fought the war nobody wanted to fight, scorched earth, painful, bloody, dogged attrition. This was a war the North could win, as they could sustain losses far more readily than Lee. It isn't a pretty or elegant way to win, but it was effective. It is what I said. He was stubborn and tenacious in his pursuit of Lee. He didn't let go, he kept pushing. And in the end, not giving Lee room to breath or maneuver, and giving him a butcher's bill the Confederacy could never pay, proved an effective strategy.

Hannibal didn't lose battles in Europe when he invaded. Scipio's great plan was to not fight him. In the end Hannibal won every battle and lost the war.

Partially false. Hannibal lost to Scipio directly on Hannibal's home ground. It was Fabius who earned the title of "Delayer" by refusing to meet Hannibal in open battle in Italy. Hannibal was stalemated by Roman attrition tactics, and Rome eventually forced him out of the prizes he captured. Rome also attacked Carthage directly, forcing them to recall Hannibal to defend his own territory. Scipio confronted him, and defeated him, in open combat, on his own ground, in a decisive engagement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zama

Even when in Italy, while he had a number of impressive victories, he was eventually stalemated, then contained. It is a testament to the economic power and long-view strategy of the Romans than they did this while also under threat from the Macedonians.

Hannibal was a great general, certainly, but to say he was undefeated in battle is false. He badly bloodied Rome. He killed a great deal of Rome's command structure in direct battle. But Rome out strategized him, wore him down, and forced him to react to defend his own territory. Then they beat him there, and Carthage was effectively broken as a power. 70 years later, Rome came back to Carthage and put the nail in the coffin.

"When troops are strong and officers weak the army is insubordinate."

The Ancients clearly saw the need for more Commissars!

KingDeath wrote:

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:GreatGunz appears to be blatantly trolling this thread, which is both surprising and disappointing to me. I haven't been here all that long, but this site has always appeared blissfully troll-free. Anyway, it was a good thread with a lot of interesting and useful quotes coming up, until it got completely hijacked.

Can you please iluminate me why discussing the sharply declining use of melee weapons in early modern warfare ( which relates to the question if the wisdom of a bunch of ancient generals can still be found useful ) is trolling?

Because people have made observations about conflict & war throughout history. Some of these observations contain truths that can be applied to conflict. We can also look back in history and see what strategy and tactics were used by various military factions and apply the lessons learned and avoid the mistakes made. These decisions need to be given a context- 40k, corporate business, modern warfare, popularity contest at school for president of the student association.

What doesn't help the discussion of difficult topic is aggressive abusive posts made by a brony poster who seemingly purposefully misinterpret or derail the points been made by others

I want to say, on behalf of the rest of us Bronies, that we don't condone the 'methods' of Gunz. That is not the Brony way.

Anvildude wrote:I want to say, on behalf of the rest of us Bronies, that we don't condone the 'methods' of Gunz. That is not the Brony way.

Indeed. There was too much aggression and not enough loving and tolerating.

Bronies are still bad and should feel bad however.

Shadowbrand wrote:Bronies are still bad and should feel bad however.

We know you love us really. Don't worry though, your secret is safe with us

You say that with a lot of certainty for someone who has never meet me before...

Although to be fair and frank. I hate bronies. Not necessarily mlp.

Shadowbrand wrote:You say that with a lot of certainty for someone who has never meet me before...

Although to be fair and frank. I hate bronies. Not necessarily mlp.

So, if you hate bronies, then shouldn't you're profile pic be the severed heads of young males with mlp shirts, rather than the mane six? Seems more fitting if you hate the group associated with the show rather than the show itself. But what's so bad about bronys? Not all that different from liking power rangers or pokemon when you get down to it. Are we too vocal for you? Or does it have to do with some misplaced notion of "Manhood?"

Because I'd tire of explaining their bronies and not some other poor shod. And because it is a taunt to said fandom.

Plus I fething love Happy Tree Friends. Hasn't been a more manlier cartoon since Johnny Quest.

I hate bronies because they are an extremely obnoxious fandom, giving the Final Fantasy kids a run for their money. -Everything- has to be ponyifed. Though such a word does not exist in the English vocabulary. They also cry a -lot- Make fun of them and they will get so butthurt they drown you in their tears.-Which makes them great to troll, believe me. Yes, you lot are too vocal for me. I'm fething tired of having to see neon color borderline furry fanservice every fething where I go on this holy and sacred internet.

Flag this comment as you will. I'm offering an opinion, like mlp all you want. If you were trolling me for liking Heavy Metal, the worse i'd do is tell you to feth off, but see, that would be the end of it! I wouldn't go about questiong the other persons manhood just because I'm butthurt somebody doesn't like Rainbow Dash. For feths sake, I even know their names now.

And on that note. I'm a bearded man who butchers the corpses of cows and pigs for a living. How -dare- you question my manliness!

I hope this thread gets locked. Because of how OT it has ran off the rails.

"War is won by attrition and patience hence why I have never lost a game of risk. Because my enemy gets fed up with my tactics of bleeding him dry." -me

"The world cannot be changed with pretty words alone. "

"If the king doesn't move, then his subjects won't follow. "

Ricedaddy wrote:
Good point. Reminds me of the Allies using Patton as a decoy early in the Normandy campaign during WW2. They set up a fake army in England and trumped up radio traffic and paraded Patton around the area. They had Hitler so convinced that another army would make a true invasion near Calais that Hitler refused to let Rommel move entire divisions to reinforce the fighting in Normandy, preventing counter-attacks that possibly could have pushed the Allies back into the sea. from the allies perspective Patton was the decoy. From Hitler's perspective, who believed Normandy was a decoy, was even more convinced because of the resources dedicated to the invasion. Coupled with some deception, he believed an invasion was coming until it was far too late to pull a victory out of the Normandy campaign. While the deception part is hard to include in 40K, the general idea holds water: dangle a convincing, but false, show of force to convince the enemy you plan to attack Point A, then attack Point B. If it works you'll at least make your opponent hesitate. If you're lucky, they'll be so convinced you're still planning to attack Point A that they won't release they've been had until it's too late.

Part of the reason that worked as well as it did was the German mindset couldn't fathom that the "Best general" (Patton) of the Allied forces would be wasted on a diversion, thus they keyed on him as being the core of any major vanguard assault. Which in 40k terms is possible I suppose, but in most low point levels would be a giant waste.

"Roll More Dice" - Me.

if some people can take information out of Sun Tsu or Patton or McArthur or even Lord Solar Macharius and make it work in 40k, more power to them.

I read "The Art of War". Know what I learned? Nothing to help me in 40k.

What will help the most is throwing down some dice, trying stupid things, seeing if they work or not, and seeing why some stupid things work but not others.

grendel083 wrote:"When troops are strong and officers weak the army is insubordinate."

The Ancients clearly saw the need for more Commissars!

"Pull da pin, throw da other part."

- Wise Ork Boy on using StikkBombs


"Those Imperial Guard gitz is lousy for fightin', but dem Space Marine boys are dead 'ard."

- The Wise Warboss leading the Wise Ork Boy...

Joey wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Sun Tzu was far more concerned with achieving strategic goals than tactical victories, despised prolonged warfare, and would find the universe of 40k utterly dystopian.

That being said probably the best 1 line quote that can be pulled from the art of war is "All war is deception"

That quote is meaningless. And how does it apply to 40k?
Sun Tsu is over-rated. I much prefer Van Clauswitz.

This quote is true and very true for 40k.
1. If you don't know the powers of a codex you are bound to get undressed by it. (GK grenades come to mind,
2. Speed kills. Though not directly it is what makes the eldar tick. The ability to get an army to come after you and then use your speed to not be there is powerful.
3. Hiding the true power of your army is a skill that is hard to achieve but very doable. Again the eldar come to mind... So you identify the lynch pin unit of an enemy and suddenly you guide two dire avenger squads, doom the target and unleash two bladestorms. 64 shots hitting about 50 times and wounding about 40 times. I don't care if you have 10 terminators. Your squad is going to be gutted in one turn.Many psychic powers are deceptions.
4. Deep striking, outflanking, even infiltrating are useful deceits.

While Clauswitz may make more obvious sense, Sun Tzu is also very applicable.

No plan survives contact with the enemy
Fair fights are for losers
Kick 'em when they're down

These three principles have led my DE force to success!

Shadowbrand wrote:Because I'd tire of explaining their bronies and not some other poor shod. And because it is a taunt to said fandom.

Plus I fething love Happy Tree Friends. Hasn't been a more manlier cartoon since Johnny Quest.

I hate bronies because they are an extremely obnoxious fandom, giving the Final Fantasy kids a run for their money. -Everything- has to be ponyifed. Though such a word does not exist in the English vocabulary. They also cry a -lot- Make fun of them and they will get so butthurt they drown you in their tears.-Which makes them great to troll, believe me. Yes, you lot are too vocal for me. I'm fething tired of having to see neon color borderline furry fanservice every fething where I go on this holy and sacred internet.

Flag this comment as you will. I'm offering an opinion, like mlp all you want. If you were trolling me for liking Heavy Metal, the worse i'd do is tell you to feth off, but see, that would be the end of it! I wouldn't go about questiong the other persons manhood just because I'm butthurt somebody doesn't like Rainbow Dash. For feths sake, I even know their names now.

And on that note. I'm a bearded man who butchers the corpses of cows and pigs for a living. How -dare- you question my manliness!

I hope this thread gets locked. Because of how OT it has ran off the rails.

I think that your just running into the wrong types of bronies. Also, i never questioned your manliness, I asked if you hated bronies because you found it "Gay" or thought it wasn't something that was "for men." Really, all the bronies i meet on the internet generally keep the pony stuff on their own threads, with the most that they do outside are avatars, the occasional quote and maybe a pic. The main reason that I see for why folks hate bronys is that when you say you don't like the show, or make some joke about them being the "cancer of the internet" and the bronies "overreacted" get "butthurt" or "jump down your throat." But to put this in perspective, bronies have to deal with hate all the time. We originally came from 4chan, and got spammed and flamed and trolled out. And in some places, bronies can get hate for having even just a pony avatar, or are quarentined to a single section of the forum, and catch hate in almost every place we go. Even on our own forums, we get people who make an account just to mock and flame and troll. So, now you might understand why we can get a little defensive, or even very defensive sometimes when people open up a jar of hate, or even just throw out some sort of "bronies suck" comment. It gets hard to tell who's just joking and who's hating and persecuting.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Anvildude wrote:I want to say, on behalf of the rest of us Bronies, that we don't condone the 'methods' of Gunz. That is not the Brony way.

Indeed. There was too much aggression and not enough loving and tolerating.

That's not true at all. I love and tolerate everybody. Especially mouth breathers who think that swords and spears are just as good as firearms. I love and tolerate them so fething much. Because they need it.

It looks from your posting you have a love of misinterpretation I feel the rage not the love!
I bet you believe in silly things like "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"
I will admit though I'm not terribly surprised how far this train has derailed via a dropping of what I'm now calling "the 'B' Bomb"

Ive found this book called 'How Wars are Won', by Bevin Alexander, to be huge in understanding how to win at war. The way he breaks down things like Stonewall Jackson's Shenendoah campaign are huge.

As far as psychological gaming, I have found reading theory and what not to be extremely unhelpful. Often times it gives someone a false sense of security, having read a book is a lot less helpful when trying to win someone over socially than actual practice.

GreatGunz wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Anvildude wrote:I want to say, on behalf of the rest of us Bronies, that we don't condone the 'methods' of Gunz. That is not the Brony way.

Indeed. There was too much aggression and not enough loving and tolerating.

That's not true at all. I love and tolerate everybody. Especially mouth breathers who think that swords and spears are just as good as firearms. I love and tolerate them so fething much. Because they need it.

People never said that swords were superior to or just as good as firearms. They said that tactics and strategies developed during the times before firearms are still applicable today. This is backed up by the fact that military commanders still study the tactics and strategies of ancient generals like Hannibal as part of their training. Strategies like cutting off supply lines, harassment and surgical strikes using small skirmishing forces and outmanoeuvring your opponent to force them to fight on your own terms at a place of your choosing are still just as effective today as they were when they were first developed.

Some of these cannot be incorporated into a one off game of 40k, where there are no supply lines and the board is set up by both players so there isn't any real advantage. Some of them can, such as harassing your opponent with a small unit or forcing them to move into a position that allows you to strike at their weaker elements from an unexpected position.

Swords and spears don't run out of ammo.

Not going to get sucked back into this. I love and tolerate you too much

And I'm the queen of france

Eidolon wrote:Ive found this book called 'How Wars are Won', by Bevin Alexander, to be huge in understanding how to win at war. The way he breaks down things like Stonewall Jackson's Shenendoah campaign are huge.

As far as psychological gaming, I have found reading theory and what not to be extremely unhelpful. Often times it gives someone a false sense of security, having read a book is a lot less helpful when trying to win someone over socially than actual practice.

I found a book called "From the Jaws of Victory," analyzing how historic battles were being won until the people in charge started going full on slow. Really good read, and it opened my eyes to the fact that for much of history wars were decided by high morale more than skilled warriors.