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.

This may be paraphrased juuuuuuuust a little bit:

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

XD

-Nazdreg- wrote:
@redbeard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'tis only a joke, is all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Ailaros

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

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

Ailaros wrote:[

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

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

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

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

Joe Mama wrote:

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

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

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

haha didn't notice the typo

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

Or you're just godly

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or you're just godly

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

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

AKA The best defense is a good offense.

Never sit on the defense! Attack!

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

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

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

This is strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

heartserenade wrote:

riverhawks32 wrote:For the record it is spelled Sun Tzu

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

I did not know that! Learn something new everyday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redbeard wrote:

-Nazdreg- wrote:
@redbeard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definitely something to think about..thanks!

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

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

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

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

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

LunaHound wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kaldor wrote:

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

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

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

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

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