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.
So, I've noticed that people on dakka tactics are pretty good at leaving quotations from long-dead real-world tacticians out of conversations of 40k (although there are numerous offenders of quotes in signatures), rather than horribly mangling them by taking them so far out of context that they actually say more or less nothing (or worse, something opposite of what was intended). Obviously 40k is a long way from the battlefield, modern or ancient, as there are whole swaths of warfare that 40k has nothing at all to do with (note the lack of staff officers, for example), and 40k is also obviously a strategy game, not strategy proper (there is no fog of war, for example), so naturally what most tacticians have said over most of time will have little bearing on 40k. Even if it did, as The Prussian said, "All principles, rules and methods will increasingly lack universality and absolute truth the closer they come to being positive doctrine." Wait did I just break my own rule?
Anyways, my question is if people have come across various tidbits over time that have ACTUALLY had an influence on how you thought about something in the world of 40k?
For example, one of the things that has actually affected the way I've played games is Sun Tsu's quote of a good general being able to defend a position with nothing more than a line in the sand if his opponent can't attack it, and can attack with nothing more than the wind if the opponent can't defend it. This for me has translated through my guard army into deploying huge, spread out infantry formations and being really aggressive with them. I've definitely won games by being so aggressive, even with inferior forces, because my opponent was forced to be so defensive that they just didn't have the time, focus, or resources to push a proper attack. In this case, I can claim an objective with nothing more than an HWS because my opponent was so concerned about four partially outflanking power blobs (and sometimes ogryn) that they didn't even have the ability to do such a minor thing as wipe it off the objective.
Likewise, Von Clausewitz' discourse on the primacy of defense wound up affecting the way I played my guard army for like a year, and my switch away from that was caused by a desire to find the exceptions in the rule. Probably my most recent one was Bull Hallsey saying the key to offense is to hit them early, hit them hard, and hit them often, which has lead to my shift in belief that special weapons are the defensive weapons and heavy weapons are the offensive ones, not the other way around.
tl;dr - has there ever been someone who said something about real war that has changed how you play 40k?
I have used the Sun Tsu one you quote on numerous times, with my guard, in exactly the same way. I played arguably the best player at my club, against his own guard, and he castled up in one corner, wimpering. I shot the hell out of him until Al'Rahiem arrived, in that corner, and annihilated him.
A lot of the principles from Sun Tsu do apply - Killhammer's basic idea is straight out of the book for example...
It's well worth a read - I think my copy was £3 on Amazon, and it's only a short book, won't take long to read.
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"
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
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.
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
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.
your primary objective in a game of 40k is to take your opponent's capital? j/k
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.
your primary objective in a game of 40k is to take your opponent's capital? j/k
Capital comes from the latin for head, "caput". If you direct all your firepower towards the opponant's most valuable and important unit, you cannot help but win.
For example, I have Manticores in my Mech Guard list. Am I going to target that tactical squad behind the shrub..or am I going to target that Storm Raven packed with assault troops?
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
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.
your primary objective in a game of 40k is to take your opponent's capital? j/k
Capital comes from the latin for head, "caput". If you direct all your firepower towards the opponant's most valuable and important unit, you cannot help but win.
For example, I have Manticores in my Mech Guard list. Am I going to target that tactical squad behind the shrub..or am I going to target that Storm Raven packed with assault troops?
I'm wondering what stupid BA player is playing both a tac squad and a storm raven full of assault marines. And why you don't have something more appropriate to fire at the stormraven.
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".
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.
As the great Sun Tzu once said, 'just spam tanks n lool til you roflstomp them'
I read the Art of war, but I have yet to apply any principles from it. However, when reading Little Wars by HG Wells, I thought that his idea of replacing 'big war' with wargaming. I think its way cooler.
Many and varied forces in progress according to waxing & waning whims.
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.
Overall though, I find that chess strategy fits the game of 40k better. These 10 chess strategy tips are much more appropriate to 40k.
1. Look at your opponent's move when you play chess.
2. Make the best possible move when you play chess.
3. Have a plan when you play chess when you play chess.
4. Know what the pieces are worth when you play chess.
5. Develop quickly and well when you play chess.
6. Control the center when you play chess.
7. Keep your King safe when you play chess.
8. Know when to trade pieces when you play chess.
9. Think about the endgame when you play chess.
10. Always be alert when you play chess.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/19 12:24:20
No idea what the source is, but the most usefull guideline in 40k that has meaning in actual warfare to me is 'Divide and conquer/Defeat in detail':
Bringing a large portion of one's own force to bear on small enemy units in sequence, rather than engaging the bulk of the enemy force all at once. This exposes one's own units to a small risk, yet allows for the eventual destruction of an entire enemy force.
Cilithan
Fiery the angels fell; deep thunder rolled around their shores; burning with the fires of Orc.
Ive read alot about hannibal the carthaginian general and althpugh i dont have any of his quotes the tactics he used against the romans i have found quiet usefull most of them are based around bait and switch presenting the enemy with a juicy target he's so focused on getting said target he doesnt notice the other units moving up to cut him down
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."
A.K.A. - Read your codex! Then read the other armies' codices! Know your rules, know their rules.
Imperial Guard 61st Regiment, Confederated Systems of Acirema- 4,000 pts
Space Wolves - 3,000 pts
Craftworld Lugganath - WIP
"constant distraction of the enemy provides opportunity"
The only one that I've really applied. With my orks, i like to take one or two Koptas with Rokkits and scout move them forwards. I put them in the enemies face as soon as I can as a distraction. With a BS of 2, they rarely do anything, but that's not why I take them. They seem to take up a lot of fire in round 1. Sometimes even in round 2 as well, depending on my saves or their poor shooting. That let's my Defdreads and foot slogging boys get that much closer before they start taking fire.
A lot of Sun Tsu's teachings isn't very applicable. But it's still an interesting read. You can listen to a free audio version here.
My favorite is "The fatal flaw in every plan is the assumption that you know more than your enemy." I think that was some dude from a M:tG card. But honestly, strategy and tactics are good and all but you never know how many terrible rolls you'll make.
I'll show ye..... - Phillip J. Fry
Those are brave men knocking on our door! Let's go kill them! - Tyrion Lannister
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.
Spoiler:
Overall though, I find that chess strategy fits the game of 40k better. These 10 chess strategy tips are much more appropriate to 40k.
1. Look at your opponent's move when you play chess.
2. Make the best possible move when you play chess.
3. Have a plan when you play chess when you play chess.
4. Know what the pieces are worth when you play chess.
5. Develop quickly and well when you play chess.
6. Control the center when you play chess.
7. Keep your King safe when you play chess.
8. Know when to trade pieces when you play chess.
9. Think about the endgame when you play chess.
10. Always be alert when you play chess
.
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.
"I have traveled trough the Realm of Death and brought back novelty pencils"
GamesWorkshop wrote: And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
the band is playing somewhere and somewhere hearts are light,and somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout but there is no joy in Mudville — mighty Casey has struck out.
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.
Or how deep your pockets are. i follow a simple pattone quotation
"We're gonna grab him by the nose and kick him in the a !" thats how i like my strategy to work i grab your armies attention with my deployment then i crush them with firepower
8000 Dark Angels (No primaris)
10000 Lizardmen (Fantasy I miss you)
3000 High Elves 4000 Kel'shan Ta'u "He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which." -Douglas Adams
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.
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
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/03/19 15:29:43
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
Kara Sloan shoots through Time and Design Space for a Negative Play Experience
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/03/19 16:32:55
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
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.
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
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.
a million billion points
prepare to be purged
W/3 L/0 D/0 round 2 2012 
W/2 L/0 D/1 round 3 2012 
school league champions 2011 
Daemons: 5000+ points
CSM/Black Legion: 5000+ points
Deathwatch/Knights: 5000 points
Imperial Guard 61st Regiment, Confederated Systems of Acirema- 4,000 pts
Space Wolves - 3,000 pts
Craftworld Lugganath - WIP
!" thats how i like my strategy to work i grab your armies attention with my deployment then i crush them with firepower
(No primaris)
