Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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."