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.

"He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."

Sun Tzu is the author of the famous Art of War book for those who do not know. You can apply the things you learn from that book to damn near every aspect of life, especially war and, in our case, 40k. I will start a series of threads about how to apply the quotes to our beloved game. In these threads, I will state the selection and explain a possible meaning, and I would love to hear your definition or response.

"He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight." This quote in 40k (to me) means identifying the correct targets. I believe that identifying the right targets to attack is the second most crucial thing in 40k, the first being objectives. Many players do not know the percentages when it comes to 40k. It is six-sided die game , understanding that is vital. If you take the time to learn the average results of 16.6%, 33%, and 50%, I promise you will win more games. Your evaluation of units will also improve. Imagine playing a game where you know the results before it happens well. Those who take the time to learn simple math can usually do that. However, it is a game, and the anomalies sometimes occur! What do you think?

I think Sunzi would hate 40k. In essence his point is "fair fights are for suckers". Since 40k is based around the idea of two evenly matched armies going up against each other, you would already have failed his teachings when setting up.
One should make sure to understand the difference between strategic and tactical levels. Sunzi is mostly concerned with the former, and we don't get that in 40k.
With that said, i always like wierd assumptions of how that old book applies to a dice game. So go on, entertain me

Cpt. Icanus wrote:
I think Sunzi would hate 40k. In essence his point is "fair fights are for suckers". Since 40k is based around the idea of two evenly matched armies going up against each other, you would already have failed his teachings when setting up.
One should make sure to understand the difference between strategic and tactical levels. Sunzi is mostly concerned with the former, and we don't get that in 40k.
With that said, i always like wierd assumptions of how that old book applies to a dice game. So go on, entertain me

meh. Another person who doesn't understand the difference between strategy and tactics:
Strategy is what you bring to the table. What is your build? Your armylist? Your decklist? Your character build?

Tactics, is what you do at the table. Play aggressive or defensive? Stealth or openly? Mill or damage? Magic or Might? What is your WinCon?

How to affect the battlefield? Do you boobytrap terrain? Do you fortify ruins?
What is the engagement distance of your units? Do you harry the enemy from range (Archers) or wait to engage in decisive combat (line infantry)?

How do you deploy terrain on the battlefield?
Do you take turns deploying terrain, how do you mitigate terrain to your advantage? Do you deploy terrain in the middle of the table to make the most of LOS blocking terrain or do you make a castle of your allotted terrain so that your Line of Sight is open (creating planet bowling ball) for your opponent to cross to get to you? Do you castle or do you spread out your units?

Do you make use of poison or assassins? Do you make use of Strategems that change the battlefield? What value do you place on them?

Since 40k is based around the idea of two evenly matched armies going up against each other,

I think that you and I have very different ideas of what this game is supposed to be. Do you bring the exact same thing to the table as your opponent? That in particular is one of the reasons that I hate the 30k setting, where every army seems like it is a variation on the Space Marine theme. Even in a game where you are playing from the same Codex as your opponent, what is the likelihood that you are going to choose the same units and equip them in the exact same way?

I think that Sun Tzu would have enjoyed 40k as a game. You see a game where we are evenly matched. I see a game where a Imperial Knight household has the same likelihood to be on a table as someone who thinks that Cultist Spam is the way to go. Yes we use points to field armies, and the point levels should be roughly equal on the field but are you saying that a unit of cultists should have the same effectiveness as the Knights? Are you crazy?

Ah, I see we're still entertaining the delusion that 40k is a masterpiece of strategy and tactics, as opposed to a shallow mess, riddled with false choice, non-interactive mechanics, and point-&-click gameplay.

But don't worry, I'm sure there's a Sun Tzu quote that will outline the tactics necessary to emerge victorious when two armies spontaneously materialise within full sight and range of one another.

 carldooley wrote:

meh. Another person who doesn't understand the difference between strategy and tactics:
*snip*
Are you crazy?

Did i come across so offensive as to justify such a condescending tone? If so apologies to op, i intended to be humorous, not insulting (though i still think the application of the art of war to 40k is... questionable).

Now, my dear friend carldooley, i full well understand the difference between strategy and tactics. And while yes, the setup of a table and the makeup of ones forces can be seen as a strategic layer, it has (close to) nothing to do with the strategy of warfare. In war offensive strategic decissions are aimed at the enemy's capability of waging war or his willingness to wage war. I wonder how you intend to achieve that in a game of 40k. The goals of war and a game are entirely different. Sunzi says, justto give one example, that war is risky and ruins an organized state when protracted too long. How does that translate to the tabletop? Besides your wallet hurting from chasing current tournament meta maybe ^^
And yes, i would very much love to see a state of 40k where a balanced Chaos army can go up against a Knight army and both have equal chances of winning that game, when using their army properly.

@OP

If you'd like me to give a less snarky answer, I think 40k just doesn't have the strategic or tactical depth for most tactical manuals to be of any great help.

For example, let's take the quote you started with:

"He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."

You looked at this as meaning target-priority, but I don't think that's really the intent. Rather, I think the intent is knowing whether to engage the enemy at all or at least at this specific time and place. For example, if the enemy army is of a similar or greater ability to your own, why engage them on even terms? If you are the defender, then you should be using the terrain to your advantage and attacking them from entrenched positions, sending skirmishers to disrupt supply lines etc. If you are the attacker, then you should likewise be hitting them where they are weakest, or applying overwhelming odds to a single position, rather than trying to fight them on even terms.

But these are strategies 40k simply does not (and cannot) account for.

 vipoid wrote:
@OP
If you are the defender, then you should be using the terrain to your advantage and attacking them from entrenched positions, sending skirmishers to disrupt supply lines etc. If you are the attacker, then you should likewise be hitting them where they are weakest, or applying overwhelming odds to a single position, rather than trying to fight them on even terms.

Some of my most satisfying games have been where I've outdeployed or outmaneuvered the opposing army and engaged one portion of it with overwhelming force, whilst limiting what they can bring to bear in return, either due to staying out of max weapon range, or being shielded by terrain. This is essentially trying to engage them on as uneven terms as possible, and knowing which ones to *not* fight. I guess every game has pockets of this running all the way through, though with smaller boards and longer weapon ranges it becomes more diluted.

Ahhh, another Freshman Philo major/ROTC student applying Sun Tzu to everything. Or Nietzsche. Sun Tzu actually didn't exist. He was a fictional character created by the Author, Sun Wu 孫武 (better known as Sun Tzu 孫子, or “Master Sun”) is the likely fictitious author of the text bearing his name, Sun Tzu’s Art of War (Sunzi Bingfa 孫子兵法).

Traditionally living from 545 - 470 BCE, there are no known contemporary accounts of his life, but several toward the end of the Warring States Era (circa 481/403 BCE - 221 BCE). The monumental historical text, Spring and Autumn Annals (Zuozhuan Chunqiu 左轉春秋), which covers the years 722 - 468 BCE doesn’t mention him at all, though it does mention the wars and battles that are attributed to him in much later texts, such as Hanfeizi 韓非子, Xunzi 荀子and Weiliaozi 尉繚子. However, his biography is found in the historical text Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji 史記) and less reliable Spring and Autumn Annals of Wu and Yue (Wuyue Chunqiu 吳越春秋).

In more to the point of this thread, you cannot make Sun Tzu about everything. There is no comparrison between say, eating a meal, or engaging in an armed military conflict, aka WAR. There is nothing in the world like war. Saying 40k is like war is a childish and silly point. 40k is toy soldiers for extremely privileged mostly white males, between the ages of 14-40. It is not the soul wrenching struggle to kill fellow humans in grizzly fashion, so that rich mostly white men can get cheaper goods.

Actually the only major comparrison between 40k is that it's simulation of the fact that mostly white men move pieces around on a board with no feeling of the cost.

Well...That escalated quickly.
Sun Tzu is basic AF.
Napoleon wrote the real art of war. Which has been closely followed by all armies in the world to this day with minor tweaks to the doctrines.

Nappy lost it all in a dumb gambit that failed miserably.

Rommel wrote the manual on modern ambush tactics and how to overwhelm superior forces with almost no advantage. Also how to effectively command infantry units in war. Half of today's Army 7-8 is taken straight from his teachings.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Nappy lost it all in a dumb gambit that failed miserably.

Rommel wrote the manual on modern ambush tactics and how to overwhelm superior forces with almost no advantage. Also how to effectively command infantry units in war. Half of today's Army 7-8 is taken straight from his teachings.

To be fair...Nappy was ill at waterloo and was not even commanding his army. I assure you - Rommel studied Napoleons battles and teachings. Rommel gets a lot of credit for losing to a bunch of green skins in the desert with inferior equipment/training/experience. Compared to Napoleon he is garbage. He commanded the one of the first army of tanks is the only reason he has any recognition.

Regardless of your favorite general. Sun Tzu is more like a philosophical guide than a technical manual. There are better guides out there than "The Art of War".

Actually I know a lot of high school dudes that bought warhammer models with their own money and in many cases worked low wage jobs (sometimes working over-time) to get it. Just because gw prices models through the roof doesn't mean only rich people do it or "privileged mostly white men" as you put it. Some might compare model collecting and trading cards to drug addiction. Last time I looked a drug addict wasn't considered privileged or at least not desirable from the outside and often they end up going homeless. Not saying collecting warhammer is that bad but game addiction can be serious in some cases.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Actually I know a lot of high school dudes that bought warhammer models with their own money and in many cases worked low wage jobs (sometimes working over-time) to get it. Just because gw prices models through the roof doesn't mean only rich people do it or "privileged mostly white men" as you put it. Some might compare model collecting and trading cards to drug addiction. Last time I looked a drug addict wasn't considered privileged or at least not desirable from the outside and often they end up going homeless. Not saying collecting warhammer is that bad but game addiction can be serious in some cases.

Look, if you can drop 100-200 bucks a month on a hobby that is essentially toy soldiers, you are privileged beyond most. And with zero doubt, the majority of economic privilege in this country is born by white men. And you want to compare collecting with drug addiction? Seriously? One is a actual health crisis. I have never seen a emaciated homeless person run out of an alley and tell me they'd trade sexual favors for a box of Intercessors. Never seen a pimp use Gaunts to compel hookers to go to work...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Nappy lost it all in a dumb gambit that failed miserably.

Rommel wrote the manual on modern ambush tactics and how to overwhelm superior forces with almost no advantage. Also how to effectively command infantry units in war. Half of today's Army 7-8 is taken straight from his teachings.

To be fair...Nappy was ill at waterloo and was not even commanding his army. I assure you - Rommel studied Napoleons battles and teachings. Rommel gets a lot of credit for losing to a bunch of green skins in the desert with inferior equipment/training/experience. Compared to Napoleon he is garbage. He commanded the one of the first army of tanks is the only reason he has any recognition.

Regardless of your favorite general. Sun Tzu is more like a philosophical guide than a technical manual. There are better guides out there than "The Art of War".

Well, we can agree on the last part at least. Sun Tzu supported some really disgusting stuff. He was not some Enlightened Guru on top of a mountain throwing out wisdom.

I was expecting this type of crazy start when I created this thread. I knew that some readers would attack the game 40k itself. To those who wish to get better at 40k, their attacks are confessions that they do not view this game worthy enough to become an expert in it. Thus, they make attacks to make you feel as if you can not accomplish your goal of becoming a great player. People naturally devalue the things in which they do not understand. I hesitated to start with math because I knew that this could happen. How many of the people who disliked the thread mentioned learning the percentages? None, because the goal was to attack my faith in myself and make the reader believe that the thread does not have valuable information. It is okay, and I accept the challenge, and I will do my best to stay focus and avoid conflict with those who wish to derail the thread.

Thank you, Carldooley, for giving examples of how the Art of War can apply to 40k. I did not expect people to have such a concrete definition of the book.

 vipoid wrote:
@OP

If you'd like me to give a less snarky answer, I think 40k just doesn't have the strategic or tactical depth for most tactical manuals to be of any great help.

For example, let's take the quote you started with:

"He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."

You looked at this as meaning target-priority, but I don't think that's really the intent. Rather, I think the intent is knowing whether to engage the enemy at all or at least at this specific time and place. For example, if the enemy army is of a similar or greater ability to your own, why engage them on even terms? If you are the defender, then you should be using the terrain to your advantage and attacking them from entrenched positions, sending skirmishers to disrupt supply lines etc. If you are the attacker, then you should likewise be hitting them where they are weakest, or applying overwhelming odds to a single position, rather than trying to fight them on even terms.

But these are strategies 40k simply does not (and cannot) account for.

Although you disagree with me about using the Art of War's teachings in 40k, you did an excellent job of voicing your opinion on your definition of the quote. You can do all of those things you mentioned using strategic reserves, just like Twilight Pathways said.

To those talking about GW prices and Nappy, can you please delete those posts as it has nothing to do with the thread!

Uhhh. The art of war is about the principles of war.

Which have been expanded and better articulated by other authors and nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_war

Good place to start.
You can get something out of it in 40k - but 40k has artificial objectives which counteract against actual generalship. A good general does not take on a plan with a high chance of failure. A good general doesn't divide their forces (like 40k requires). A good general will adapt mission objectives based on the situation. A good general will retreat from an unwinnable situation. I would say actual war principles are counter productive in 40k. 40k is very simple strike first / strike hard / win most of the time. Don't need to read a book to get good at that.

All of this crazy hyperbole aside, I agree with Cpt. Icanus' reaction: the Art of War is about creating and maintaining advantages on a strategic level. 40k just doesn't have the same scope of as a military campaign; it's a game designed to be fair to both players. The Art of War is all about making the situation as unfair as possible for your opponent.

Most of the book is about grand strategy, like managing government politics and logistics, while 40k is exclusively about the tactics of individual soldiers. 40k has perfect information, and the Art of War is largely about manipulating imperfect information. There's an entire section on dealing with spies, for instance, that has no analogy to 40k. Things like his advice on dealing with terrain aren't relevant. The logistics of transporting, feeding, and maintaining an army aren't relevant.

The lessons in Art of War would translate to doing things so that you bring more points in a game, or move all the objective markers into your deployment zone. Make the game unfair for your opponent first, so victory is assured. Only then do you commit.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Actually I know a lot of high school dudes that bought warhammer models with their own money and in many cases worked low wage jobs (sometimes working over-time) to get it. Just because gw prices models through the roof doesn't mean only rich people do it or "privileged mostly white men" as you put it. Some might compare model collecting and trading cards to drug addiction. Last time I looked a drug addict wasn't considered privileged or at least not desirable from the outside and often they end up going homeless. Not saying collecting warhammer is that bad but game addiction can be serious in some cases.

Look, if you can drop 100-200 bucks a month on a hobby that is essentially toy soldiers, you are privileged beyond most. And with zero doubt, the majority of economic privilege in this country is born by white men. And you want to compare collecting with drug addiction? Seriously? One is a actual health crisis. I have never seen a emaciated homeless person run out of an alley and tell me they'd trade sexual favors for a box of Intercessors. Never seen a pimp use Gaunts to compel hookers to go to work...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Nappy lost it all in a dumb gambit that failed miserably.

Rommel wrote the manual on modern ambush tactics and how to overwhelm superior forces with almost no advantage. Also how to effectively command infantry units in war. Half of today's Army 7-8 is taken straight from his teachings.

To be fair...Nappy was ill at waterloo and was not even commanding his army. I assure you - Rommel studied Napoleons battles and teachings. Rommel gets a lot of credit for losing to a bunch of green skins in the desert with inferior equipment/training/experience. Compared to Napoleon he is garbage. He commanded the one of the first army of tanks is the only reason he has any recognition.

Regardless of your favorite general. Sun Tzu is more like a philosophical guide than a technical manual. There are better guides out there than "The Art of War".

Well, we can agree on the last part at least. Sun Tzu supported some really disgusting stuff. He was not some Enlightened Guru on top of a mountain throwing out wisdom.

Yeah but you've seen people in korea play starcraft until they literally collapsed and died or people with gambling addictions that lose the whole house. Gaming can be an addiction and to say NEET's in japan don't exist (someone that essentially doesn't work and isn't in school) and that they often just play games all day instead. It can be an issue. In my personal life i know a family member's friend that got really mad and supposedly did some awful crap when his WoW account he wasn't even paying for was cancelled. Yeah to an extent it's privilege but addiction does awful things to people.

Also often the homeless person doesn't ask for drugs because someone would often say no. They ask for money often times suggesting it's for food or something. Saying a person has never begged for a gaming addiction is a straight up lie. I've begged for my gaming addictions in the past which is why i didn't want to enter warhammer in the first place. It made me abuse the good will of others and that's something i'd rather not do again.

Not to mention i know an older gentleman that couldn't keep up with the price increases of the hobby that had probably collected since the beginning. This man worked in factories much like myself which are fairly low wages. Seriously i work fairly close to minimum wage and if we're gonna go by privilege i'm also autistic (if that even matters) and i also have other things about me i'd rather not discuss on this board right here.

I suppose rich middle eastern princes aren't a thing or the top people in china and personally while i live in a fairly nice area there are plenty of people that are asian or east indian and even in a case middle eastern in my neighborhood. In fact one of the people that drove me around (i have some disability) worked for a family that had 5 houses in different parts of the country and the dad owned a basketball team....and it was a black family. It just so happened his son was disabled.

Listen if you want to insult all the people in the hobby then fine. I just don't understand why you'd then wish to partake in an online forum dedicated to the game. It's kind of like that statement of somebody saying they hate crap but they keep stepping and wallowing in it. If you dislike it just move on from it.

----------

I apologize to the original creator of this thread. I feel things were at least somewhat on topic with sun tzu before being derailed.

Personally i think sun tzu wouldn't play a fair game because life isn't about 100% fair games.

----------

Anyway i'm probably gonna head out. I'd rather not continue in a crap throwing contest that ends in a thread lock.

What a load of passive aggressive feedback OP has received

I respect everyone's opinion on the book. I notice there is too much attention to the book and not the quote. The thread is not named the Art of War. It is called Sun Tzu quote. Can we focus on the quote and how it can be applied 40k? Even if you do not think it is applicable, can you use your imagination? "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight." I believe it means identifying the correct targets and knowing what weapons can hurt which units or using terrain to minimize the damage you take. We are thinking too hard, people.

 CKO wrote:
I respect everyone's opinion on the book. I notice there is too much attention to the book and not the quote. The thread is not named the Art of War. It is called Sun Tzu quote. Can we focus on the quote and how it can be applied 40k? "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight." I believe it means identifying the correct targets and knowing what weapons can hurt which units or using terrain to minimize the damage you take. We are thinking too hard, people.

I mean... that's just extremely basic and broad. There's not much to talk about. You can't choose not to fight in 40k, so the quote can mean whatever metaphor you want.

However, the quote isn't a metaphor: it's literally about knowing when you commit to a battle. There is one direct analogy: don't play against an opponent unless you know you outmatch them. But that's terrible advice for 40k, because it's a social game. Not fighting a losing battle can advance your goals of winning a war; only beating up noobies with your WAAC list just destroys your reputation.

 CKO wrote:
Many players do not know the percentages when it comes to 40k. It is six-sided die game , understanding that is vital. If you take the time to learn the average results of 16.6%, 33%, and 50%, I promise you will win more games. Your evaluation of units will also improve. Imagine playing a game where you know the results before it happens well. Those who take the time to learn simple math can usually do that.

Likewise, this doesn't really say anything. Anybody who's serious already checks the average and expected results of their stuff.

CKO if you want to look at that quote and apply it to 40k, you could look at it in terms of target priority. It's your turn, do you use your army to destroy everything on the objectives or try and destroy that one nasty unit that can delete multiple units a turn.

 Elfric wrote:
CKO if you want to look at that quote and apply it to 40k, you could look at it in terms of target priority. It's your turn, do you use your army to destroy everything on the objectives or try and destroy that one nasty unit that can delete multiple units a turn.

So do you fight the nasty unit or do you not? It all depends on the durability of the nasty unit and if you brought the weapons to take it down. In 40k "take it down" is a term that I view differently than most players. If you are facing a nasty unit that you know you cannot kill in one turn, are you capable of making that unit less nasty! Imagine your playing against a paladin bomb how many can you statistically kill. Killing 3 paladins in one turn is taking it down. Your goal is to lower the amount of damage that the nasty unit will be able to inflict on you the next turn. You can do the same to Centurions, 3 vs 5 is a major difference, making a Knight hit on 4's compared to 3's is huge. I also should mention the decision to take out a nasty unit vs multiple units should be made prior to the game. Taking out everything except the big nasty is a game strategy not something you decide on turn 3.

We can pretend to be deep and try to apply Art Of War to 40k, but the game is wildly imbalanced and is still designed around IGOUGO, with the latter taking out any Tactical level of thinking in the game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
We can pretend to be deep and try to apply Art Of War to 40k, but the game is wildly imbalanced and is still designed around IGOUGO, with the latter taking out any Tactical level of thinking in the game.

I'd only agree to a point. I've listened to a lot of interviews with some of the tournament winning players, and many do seem to use some of the basics in terms of tactics and strategy. Keeping as simple, but flexible, plan, positioning, target priority, being the one to better setup bad choices rather than being the one having to deal with them, etc. There is some skill and experience required to be a good player, and an experienced player has an edge over a newbie.

That said, a power list is still a power list, dice are dice (though planning can somewhat mitigate this one), and First Player Preference is still a thing.

People apply Sun Tzu quotes to everything with varying degrees of seriousness, so I don’t think it’s crazy discuss both serious and tongue-in-cheek applications of The Art of War to Warhammer 40K.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Regardless of your favorite general. Sun Tzu is more like a philosophical guide than a technical manual. There are better guides out there than "The Art of War".

+1

With that said...
40k isn't perfect. I wish that it wasn't possible to get rerolls for everything. I wish we could go back to 6th edition wounding rolls. I wish my markerlights still worked the way that they used to.

That's 3 wishes, I suppose my soul is forfeit now.

A reminder if you are posting spam, personal attacks or pseudo-political commentary in this thread you will be removed. Those are all against the rules. Do not do it.

The best analogy to 40k is actually min-max listbuilding to achieve as much of an 'unfair' advantage as possible. Focusing on the particular quote of the OP, the only way to apply it to 40k is to take it out of context and change the meaning entirely. At that point it becomes just basic tactical advice but delivered in a manner that can come off as extremely pretentious. That alone will undermine any attempt at polite discussion, because people are going to be compelled to make their own passive-aggressive insults in return.

I see this element being most important regarding the claiming of objectives.

Being careful not to throw units piecemeal at an objective, but to claim it in such a way as to ensure it creates a point advantage. It is worth forfeiting a round of attacks, if advancing with those units will secure a 15 point (primary) turn. Because you gain tempo advantage (opponent must over-extend not just to push you back, but to then try to hold the objective in turn against you. While you can then play the attrition game, trading pieces to avoid giving back the lead.

This has been a crucial lesson to me, having just started Tau in 9th. Establishing a lead, and then trading control back and forth with little to no scoring forces my opponent’s hand to aggressively move into “traps” where they’re gunned down and I then feed another ObSec unit to the objective, re-baiting the trap. Often advancing to move from LOS blocking terrain to the objective. Forgoing the attack to score / deny VP, while sitting on an early lead is viable strategy.

 DarkHound wrote:
it's a game designed to be fair to both players. The Art of War is all about making the situation as unfair as possible for your opponent.

What kind of game of 40k are you playing? The game in principle is meant to be fair but practically that is not even remotely the case.

List creation is where the you start making it unfair as possible for you opponent. Bring an all armor list, bring an infantry spam list, bring a threat overload list. Rarely are two balanced armies vsing each other.

Also going 1st and 2nd is not fair. This is not in your control as such.