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.

I read this quote from The Art of War, and I was thinking about how this quote, not the whole book, would apply to 40k. The quote goes, ‘If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.’

I think this quote can apply to a 40k player in many ways. Knowing the enemy and yourself means knowing both yours and your opponent's army list capabilities. If you are facing Blood Angels and you do not deploy in a way to protect yourself from Death Company and their Forlon Fury stratagem, which allows them to move pre-game, you may lose the game in turn one! You should know how your army will be able to deal with those types of tactics, such as using your screen or infiltrating units to keep them away from your essential units.

If you do not like Sun Tzu, the quote, or think 40k is a lousy game, why did you click the thread? We do not need pessimistic energy. I want this thread to have a positive vibe. Debates on someone's definition of the quote are welcomed. An onslaught of post about how you dislike Art of War is not needed. If you have a negative opinion of the thread, try to think of the quote in a vacuum and see if that helps. I want you to contribute, but if your post attacks the integrity of the thread, please keep it to yourself.

Edited: saw the other post

Hmm, isn't it kinda spammy to have a thread for every Sun Tzu quote? I get that the OG thread was kind of derailed but it seems to have mostly died down so I don't see the point of starting another one.

Also, yeah, basically know your enemy is a very basic idea for any game that you play, not sure if that's really Sun Tzu specific.The whole idea of a meta in any game whether its tabletop, chess or video games involves knowing the strongest and most powerful abilities of opponents and combos. If you don't keep updated you're just setting yourself up for "gotcha" moments.

He’s trying to ditch the negativity on the other thread

Basically read codices when they come out. Not difficult.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Basically read codices when they come out. Not difficult.

Even just looking at codex summaries/reviews or stuff like 1d4chan is sufficient, so you don't even need to buy the books necessarily. Either way, not exactly a "tactical" discovery in any sense, just due diligence.

 Grimskul wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Basically read codices when they come out. Not difficult.

Even just looking at codex summaries/reviews or stuff like 1d4chan is sufficient, so you don't even need to buy the books necessarily. Either way, not exactly a "tactical" discovery in any sense, just due diligence.

So... 'Nids and Custodes OP in 9th confirmed then.

I think Codex summaries are worthwhile, but the way you phrase your argument is very reductionist. 'Due diligence' and this quote also includes answering what your actually going to do when you see something. How are you going to beat that army of T5 W5 4/3+ 6+++ models?

Lammia wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Basically read codices when they come out. Not difficult.

Even just looking at codex summaries/reviews or stuff like 1d4chan is sufficient, so you don't even need to buy the books necessarily. Either way, not exactly a "tactical" discovery in any sense, just due diligence.

So... 'Nids and Custodes OP in 9th confirmed then.

I think Codex summaries are worthwhile, but the way you phrase your argument is very reductionist. 'Due diligence' and this quote also includes answering what your actually going to do when you see something. How are you going to beat that army of T5 W5 4/3+ 6+++ models?

I don't see how Nids would be considered OP after one reading their rules tbh. And Custodes have been consistently placing in top 5 in recent tournies so far, so while I wouldn't say they're OP, they are certainly top tier as far as armies go.

The reason I was so dismissive of the Sun Tzu quote above is because it precisely doesn't help you beyond basically informing yourself of what the enemy can do. Theory is only good when applied with practical experience. You actually need to know your army intimately rules-wise and the strengths of your lists in terms of objectives to know how to counter or mitigate whatever your opponent is fielding. There is no "one size fits all" approach since you have chances of facing a skew list where you're on the back foot and there's so many factions to factor for that you can only account for the ones who are the most likely threat you'll face.

 Grimskul wrote:
Theory is only good when applied with practical experience. You actually need to know your army intimately rules-wise and the strengths of your lists in terms of objectives to know how to counter or mitigate whatever your opponent is fielding. There is no "one size fits all" approach since you have chances of facing a skew list where you're on the back foot and there's so many factions to factor for that you can only account for the ones who are the most likely threat you'll face.

This is an excellent example of applying the quote to 40k. I agree, with 40k today there are so many factions and great stratagems it is nearly impossible to know all of your enemies like you know yourself.

Having heard about a stratagem or unit is totally different from having a counter or a strategy prepared to mitigate it.

 Grimskul wrote:

I don't see how Nids would be considered OP after one reading their rules tbh. And Custodes have been consistently placing in top 5 in recent tournies so far, so while I wouldn't say they're OP, they are certainly top tier as far as armies go.

I think his point was in reference to the idea of reading 4chan summaries which are often biased and not always written in a comprehensive way.









In the end most of the Art of War is very simplistic style advice and concepts. Broadly speaking this quotation, in context of a 40K game, means that the more you know your own army and the more you know your opponents; the better you can prepare and play and the greater your chance of victory. Knowledge is power etc..

Arguing about how much or how little you need to know is basically pointless because without an extensive study on hundred of players of different levels of understanding (understanding of which can be quantified and measured); you wont' ever get a clear answer on how much you need or how little you can get away with.



And yes there is a difference between book theory and practical game experience. The former gives you the ideal and mathematical statistical elements; the latter gives you context. It also, if you know a specific player, can give you insight into typical choices that player might make. If you know that Bob always guns right for the most expensive thing on the table against him then you already know how that might affect deployment; early turn movement; target selection etc....




In the end pure book theory will never replace game theory; and game theory will never be as fast to learn volumes of information as book theory will provide. A balance of the two is nearly always essential. Of course in a game a good understanding of the rules can let you adapt on the fly to new armies and units quite quickly with a look at their basic stats.

Can the quote be applied to 40k in a manner that constitutes helpful advice? From my perspective 'it helps to know your opponent's rules' is on the level of common sense. People may be limited in how much they do so (for various reasons) but explaining that idea is not particularly insightful.

Or maybe I am wrong and that advice is something a notable amount of people have not deduced on their own.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Can the quote be applied to 40k in a manner that constitutes helpful advice? From my perspective 'it helps to know your opponent's rules' is on the level of common sense. People may be limited in how much they do so (for various reasons) but explaining that idea is not particularly insightful.

Or maybe I am wrong and that advice is something a notable amount of people have not deduced on their own.

The Art of War, for all its popular nature, is basically a short (very short honestly) booklet designed to be common sense for an Emperor when dealing with generals and war. It's very much a simplistic summary of the complexities of war. The idea being that its a short clipped reference point, which likely then was backed up, when required, with more detailed conversation. Perhaps consider it like the first Powerpoint display of a degree. It's more summarising and simplifying what is to come and the general key points, rather than delving into the complexities and specifics.


I think that also because of its popularity a lot of its quotes and phrases (when translated) have also slipped into common parlance and discourse. So it seems even more obvious because it gets quoted (often without attribution) so often around us. Which highlights how effective it is at what it does, but also shows that its not the complex generals handbook that some make it out to be.




Interestingly there are also elements which don't translate or repeat as often in the west because they are very much focused on the Imperial court system and dealing with a ruler who considers themselves (and who society also considers) a god.

I know the background of the book, the OP made it clear this thread is not supposed to be about that. I am talking strictly in terms of the quote being tactically useful in 40k.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am talking strictly in terms of the quote being tactically useful in 40k.

I think you may be missing the point of the thread. The quote definition may be simple but the translation to 40k varies based on the player. With this quote, we all agree with the meaning is about having a good understanding of your army rules and your opponent army's rule. How do people gain this knowledge is different some say they read brief summaries, some use 4chan, others buy each codex. There is no right or wrong answer its more about finding the right balance for you.

 Overread wrote:
In the end most of the Art of War is very simplistic style advice and concepts. Broadly speaking this quotation, in context of a 40K game, means that the more you know your own army and the more you know your opponents; the better you can prepare and play and the greater your chance of victory. Knowledge is power etc..

And yes there is a difference between book theory and practical game experience. The former gives you the ideal and mathematical statistical elements; the latter gives you context. It also, if you know a specific player, can give you insight into typical choices that player might make. If you know that Bob always guns right for the most expensive thing on the table against him then you already know how that might affect deployment; early turn movement; target selection etc....

In the end pure book theory will never replace game theory; and game theory will never be as fast to learn volumes of information as book theory will provide. A balance of the two is nearly always essential. Of course in a game a good understanding of the rules can let you adapt on the fly to new armies and units quite quickly with a look at their basic stats.

Knowledge is power is exactly what this quote means. An example of this is the range of weapons. I have seen units die when they could have lived by simply deploying them further away. I find the part of this post about book and game theory interesting because I use more book theory than game theory.

The quote doesn't just mean know your opponent's army, but also know your opponent. How do they play? Aggressive, cagey? Do they favor primary or secondary more? Stuff like that.

Hard to do for PuG's, but it's part of the idea. Knowing the general is as important as knowing the army.

Audustum wrote:
The quote doesn't just mean know your opponent's army, but also know your opponent. How do they play? Aggressive, cagey? Do they favor primary or secondary more? Stuff like that.

Hard to do for PuG's, but it's part of the idea. Knowing the general is as important as knowing the army.

I actually think this is the more useful aspect in a more casual setting. Knowing if your opponent likes straightforward play, or if they like to be sneakier for instance.

Knowing yourself isn't *just* about knowing your army book and list cold, but knowing the game you want to play when you start setting up. Don't tell yourself you're a sneaky player if you always just run up the middle, bolters firing, for instance.

Audustum wrote:
The quote doesn't just mean know your opponent's army, but also know your opponent. How do they play? Aggressive, cagey? Do they favor primary or secondary more? Stuff like that.

Hard to do for PuG's, but it's part of the idea. Knowing the general is as important as knowing the army.

Ah, now THAT is some useful advice!

Of note: Knowing your enemy, and knowing yourself doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be able to use that knowledge to win. Not fearing the result of a battle also means knowing when a battle is unwinnable.

For 40k, this can mean knowing when you can't deal with a unit or an army in a traditional way, and that your only hope lies in doing X, where X is some non-traditional way of not losing. (Ignoring Objectives, and going for tabling, ignoring killing at all, and trying to hold objectives. fighting for a tie, etc.)