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.

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!