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.

Sun-Tzu may not always apply, but then again he may apply more often than you think.

His was an abstract dissertation on war. Because of that, more may apply than you think. His tactics apply to chess, so why not warhammer?

Naturally you will have to adapt quotes and some may not apply at all, but you can still use them.

For example, he advocates using mental warfare. Now that won't effect your opponents soldiers but it can work on your opponent. If he has a prized model, kill it. In a suitably nasty way. If doing that will throw off his game plan it will be worthwhile, even if it would have little effect on the state of the game if your opponent acted completely rational.

On the same note, don't allow the same thing to happen to you. don't get flustered if something happens to your own prized model, or if something doesn't go to plan.

If you want to supply some wit to your quotes, go ahead and quote Patton, MacArthur, or chesty puller, they all put the battlefield and strategy into perspective with some sort of maniac delight, plus they tend to be hilarious.


To reconaissance troops "just drive down the road until you blow up!" - Patton

' "All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time"puller


To just name a few

 ansacs wrote:
I would argue with one point vehemently. The art of war is not a primer on military science but on strategy. It should be noted that this is a book that is mandatory reading in many upper level management courses...Hm, perhaps the business world fits; "...in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war." better than 40K does?

It's true that "The Art of War" is used as mandatory reading in many fields, not just military science or business. It's also mandatory reading in a great many martial art's as well (as has already been pointed out), plus I've used it as one of many texts in various leadership and confidence building courses that I've run over the years. However, the fact that it is used as a primer in many diverse fields does not change the fact it is a primer. An introductory text that over-simplifies many concepts in order to impart a little knowledge. At the end of the day, it was prepared for courtiers, minor bureaucrats and other court functionaries (many of whom had a military function) so they could pretend to be experts in a field they knew little about. Actually, pretend to be be experts is possibly a little harsh. It attempts to impart a basic knowledge of strategy (which, by the way, is a branch of military science that has since been exported to and used successfully in other fields)

And if you've ever looked into the way zaibitsu (or,for that matter, GW) do business, then will know that the old adage is true in many respects: business is war. But in business, the casualties are jobs and contracts. So yes, the Art of War is way more relevant to business than it is to 40K.

In any case, regardless of the many fields in which it's principles are viable, in the Dakka forums, it is almost always being (mis)quoted in a military context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talore wrote:
Whining about people quoting Sun Tzu doesn't make you "sound intelligent, wise, or even original" either.

"But I wasn't trying to be those/edgy!" Yeah, same as most people who decide to quote Sun Tzu, either. I'll bet most people aren't actually trying to make themselves look intelligent. They're showing citations about basic military strategy. Which is NOT completely useless when talking about 40k, even if large parts of it is. I mean, just to point out one example, there's a lot of content on mind games you play with the other general or player. Not irrelevant.

If a basic manual is accessible, why not use it when appropriate?

Fine, use it where appropriate. Quote it where appropriate. And explain why you are quoting that particular part of the text and WHY it is relevant to the situation at hand.

You do make a good point though. Sun Tzu does talk about mind games. Personally, I don't think that playing mind-games has any place in 40K. Even at the competitive level, but that's both my personal opinion (I generally despise mind-games as being unsportsmanlike) and my choice (not to use them). Perhaps you could provide a few examples of the extracts from Sun Tzu that have helped you win mind-games in 40K? And then perhaps you could explain how these particular quotes helped you in a game?







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
Oh, I agree. 40k and the real world are sufficiently different that the two don't have a lot of direct comparison. I mean, it's like saying that Torsten Albig and Chris Christie have a lot in common with each other because they're both related to cows.

... that said...

I don't think it's completely pointless. Reading things like Sun Tsu helps you think more abstractly, and in terms similar to the kind you'd find to a wargame (regardless of if the terms are actually applicable or not). If it trains your mind to be more mindful, and that helps you play a dice game with a thin veneer of strategy on top, well, then what's wrong with that?

Furthermore, mantras aren't, in and of themselves, bad things. Once again, they don't need to be specifically related to get you thinking in a mode that will help you think of things that are related. Plus, they can be used to impart complex ideas with a few number of words. It's one of the reasons religions use chants and symbology. No, a bit of bread doesn't become magic zombie Jesus flesh, but if practicing communion helps you think about how you could be nicer or more loving towards others, then what's the problem?

If your complaint is that people are spouting empty dogmas or mantras without really knowing what they're about, or how to apply them correctly, then you're probably right, most of the time. But that doesn't mean you're right ALL of the time, or that different people get the same meaning from the same things.

After all, "righty tighty, lefty loosey" is actually abridging a LOT of information about how torque and mechanical engineering, and industrial machining works... but it still helps me put a screw into a bit of wood.

It's definitely not pointless. Reading Sun Tzu is a good start when it comes to enabling someone to take control of their life and plan for the long-term. As has been pointed out, there's a reason for why it's become a primer in so many fields, not just warfare.

You're spot on with regards to my complaint. I am complaining about people uses quotes that they either don't appear to understand or are using completely out of context. I also agree 100% that not everyone get's the same meaning from the same piece of text. Which is why I would encourage people who would like to drop a quote into the discussion to explain why they think the quote is relevant to the situation. If someone has an insight to share, I'd rather they shared their insight, rather than simply shoe-horning someone elses's insight (Sun Tzu's for example) into the situation because is almost fits.

If that insight is about HOW Sun Tzu's insight fits into the situation, then please tell me how it fits. I am a grasshopper and I am eager to learn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 LeadLegion wrote:


If you want to impress me with your wisdom and learning, try quoting Mao, Ceaser, Guderian, Rommel, Frontius, Vegetius, Livy, or even Basil Liddle-Hart.
.

Where are your principles! You left out Jomini!
Oh wait, you wanted to be impressed......

Yes I did! And congratulations, I'm very impressed. I had expected someone to add Clauswitz to the list, but I'm very pleasantly surprised that someone thought of Jomini.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 LeadLegion wrote:


If you want to impress me with your wisdom and learning, try quoting Mao, Ceaser, Guderian, Rommel, Frontius, Vegetius, Livy, or even Basil Liddle-Hart.
.

Where are your principles! You left out Jomini!
Oh wait, you wanted to be impressed......

Yes I did! And congratulations, I'm very impressed. I had expected someone to add Clauswitz to the list, but I'm very pleasantly surprised that someone thought of Jomini. I've tried to find a way to say hat without coming across as a condescending git, but can't really find one. I'm genuinely surprised though. Jomini is fairly obscure these days.

A mind game can be as simple as a Rock Paper Scissors encounter (basically hidden information, you have some guys deep striking, you're guessing where he will land it so you move to counter where you think he may choose to land, forcing him to re-evaluate).

Other mind games are baiting, or using units to threaten areas (he lands the Wraithknight in a big obvious place, do you switch attenition to it or attack other parts of his armour? Or retreat from the area)

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sun-Tzu may not always apply, but then again he may apply more often than you think.

His was an abstract dissertation on war. Because of that, more may apply than you think. His tactics apply to chess, so why not warhammer?

Naturally you will have to adapt quotes and some may not apply at all, but you can still use them.

For example, he advocates using mental warfare. Now that won't effect your opponents soldiers but it can work on your opponent. If he has a prized model, kill it. In a suitably nasty way. If doing that will throw off his game plan it will be worthwhile, even if it would have little effect on the state of the game if your opponent acted completely rational.

On the same note, don't allow the same thing to happen to you. don't get flustered if something happens to your own prized model, or if something doesn't go to plan.

The example you quoted has it's merits. But you're already going to be killing his prized models because it poses a threat to you, regardless of how it makes your opponent feel, so I would say that Sun Tzu's influence in that situation is limited. You were going to kill the model anyway, regardless of the psychological aspect of the game. The other side of the coin (making an opponent feel that a miniature is more deadly than it is so that he goes after it with everything he has (a distraction carnifex for example), one kind of mis-idrection advocated by Sun Tzu, is only going to work on very inexperienced players because most veterans know the codices inside out.

That being said, there are plenty of ways to play mind-games on your opponent. I don't doubt it. I just doubt whether they should be used in a game of 40K, which is about recreation and having fun after all. I'd never use mind-games even in a tournament, but that's personal choice more than anything else.

Finally, all that being said, I can't think of a single time I've seen a "mind-game" Sun Tzu quote used anywhere on Dakka.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
If you want to supply some wit to your quotes, go ahead and quote Patton, MacArthur, or chesty puller, they all put the battlefield and strategy into perspective with some sort of maniac delight, plus they tend to be hilarious.


To reconaissance troops "just drive down the road until you blow up!" - Patton

' "All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time"puller


To just name a few

Humour is the word. Quoting Sun Tzu out of context will make me cringe. Quoting Patton or Mac Arthur as giants of military theory will make me cry and bring Sun Tzu back from the dead to punish you!

Quoting them for a laugh, on the other hand, is something I can totally 100% support.

I stick to Jesus for my military theory quotes.

"And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other" and whatnot...

 Daba wrote:
A mind game can be as simple as a Rock Paper Scissors encounter (basically hidden information, you have some guys deep striking, you're guessing where he will land it so you move to counter where you think he may choose to land, forcing him to re-evaluate).

Other mind games are baiting, or using units to threaten areas (he lands the Wraithknight in a big obvious place, do you switch attenition to it or attack other parts of his armour? Or retreat from the area)

I see what you're getting at, but I don't really think most of these examples count as mind-games. Most players expect and know how to counter deep-strikers, so they don't fret much about it and don't let the prospect of being deep-striked throw them off their game. It's not so much psychology or misdirection as a variety of out-flanking. The other example you give is more akin to a diversion.

By the way, Sun Tzu does cover both outflanking and pincers in the text of The Art of War. So you have provided a perfect example of how Sun Tzu can be applied to 40K. That being said, I don't think I've ever seen anyone quote the particular passages that deal with outflanking and diversions here on Dakka. Anyone care to take a stab at it?

My main point is that many of the people who quote Sun Tzu on Dakka drop in Sun Tzu quotes don't actually seem to understand them. Or if they do understand them, they don't explain why they are relevant to 40K or the current discussion in a way that someone who has not read Sun Tzu would understand.

My complaint is not so much that Sun Tzu is being quoted. It's that Sun Tzu is being quoted badly. Often by posters who seem to be ignorant of what the quote actually means. I say, "seem" to be ignorant, because the poster could very well understand the meaning and relevance of the quotation perfectly. But that doesn't help the rest of us if the poster doesn't explain why the quote fits perfectly in the context of the discussion.

Please don't just drop a quote into the thread and disappear. Explain why you made the quote and why it is relevant.


And that's still my main point.

So, nobody else here is aware that Sun-Tzu is a "they" and not a "he"...?

I think I did say it was time to dig out the torches and pitchforks?
This is like wrestling with a pig in mud: don't do it, they like it! (yes, I am being a hypocrite, sue me...)

@LeadLegion: I dub thee honorary Troll for this thread since no conclusion can be made other than he gets irritated by misquotes without explination.

Creating a whole thread just to whine about people that quote Sun Tzu makes you look like a douche.

My problem is that people get intimidated by someone big and beautiful like me. They hate to think I can be smart as well.
- Dolph Lundgren.

I agree, which is why I quote BRIAN BLESSED for military guidance.

 Kain wrote:
I agree, which is why I quote BRIAN BLESSED for military guidance.

SLIT THEIR GIZZARDS!

 Purifier wrote:
Creating a whole thread just to whine about people that quote Sun Tzu makes you look like a douche.
My problem is that people get intimidated by someone big and beautiful like me. They hate to think I can be smart as well.
- Dolph Lundgren.

He had a mental blockage that needed an exorcism, he was not in his right mind.
You could be quite right he was in need of a "mental irrigation", I fail to see how he looks like a water filled squeeze bottle...

How about this one instead....

"I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends."

Oh...was I supposed to quote Sun Tzu? Or not? My bad.

Yup, the whole thread might very well make me appear to be a Douche. After all, I've essentially ranted about a pet peeve. Am I trying to be a troll? No, not at all. For one thing, I haven't run off to wring my hands together and cackle maniaclly because people are actually posting responces to the thread.

@Super Ready I expect that many of the people who have been posting in this thread probably are aware that Sun Tzu is a "they." But a lot of people, including many of those who quote the text, are not aware of it. That's why I've been referring to "them" as Sun Tzu. It's just a convention used for simplicity.

The fact it was written by a number of people over a period of time is one reason why I keep pointing out that just quoting the text doesn't mean you understand it.

The naive cretin who amended the text to include the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is probably not the same individual who wrote the majority of the text. For one thing, this particular statement is hopelessly politically naive at worst and a gross over-simplification of a common political scenario at best. It simply doesn't fit with the real-politik (pardon the modern term, but it's the one that best fits) stance adopted in the rest of the book.

But there is a point to this conversation. It's a point that's valid to any use of quotations and it's something that most of us should have learned in high school.

That point is: if you're going to use a quotation in an argument, at least discuss how the quotation you're using is relevant to the conversation.

A one line post in a thread that consists solely of a single line from the Art of War (or any other text for example) adds about as much to the discussion as a random fart joke. If you have something to say, surely it's better to say it in your own words, rather than quoting the words of someone else?

Alternatively, Explaining what the quote you're using means within the context of the discussion you are using it in adds significantly more weight to your argument.

I'm far more likely to pay attention to what you have to say if you use a quote to support an argument you're making than if your argument consists solely of the quote itself.

Or maybe you could use the quote to reinforce something you've already said yourself. As evidence backing up an assertion you've already made earlier in your post.

How to use a quotation to support an argument effectively is, frankly, something that just about all of us should have learned in school.

Sounded like a good closing statement
(still preachy... gotta send you to sensitivity training or something...)

Right about now we have a moderator shut down the thread?

When I have this much fun that is what usually happens...

@Talizvar: Pfah! I'm so sensitive I get bruises on a windy day!

 LeadLegion wrote:
@Talizvar: Pfah! I'm so sensitive I get bruises on a windy day!

I am assuming you are referring to a tornado with debris from a construction site?
I have issues with people folding a map wrong in front of me so I am very happy with the invention of the GPS, I may discuss this further one day.
See you in the other public therapy forums!

Wait, this wasn't a group therapy forum!



I got my appointments wrong again.