# Has anyone ever read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War"?



## Pirate Metal Troy (Jun 2, 2008)

I didn't actually read it, but I got narrated version. I think it's a really interesting listen/read. Having not the greatest of attention spans, I'm going to have to listen to it in it's entirety again.

Applying it's points to warhammer is a tricky task, as there's a lot of things that you can't really apply. Spies for instance. Unless you're scoping out an opponent's list before a match, or loudly stating that you LOVE a certain model and use it religiously despite it's obvious downfalls. Deception and reconisance are not really a huge part of 40k.

After a more thorough listen to increase my comprehension of all the book's lessons, it may actually prove to be an asset to my playing. I just wonder is anyone else has derived any lessons from this book.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Sun Tzu is hard to apply to a tabletop wargame... because deception is much harder to achieve.

Also, a lot of the book deals with the idea of defeating your enemy without resorting to battle.

Also, Sun Tzu puts a premium on taking your enemy's state intact, which the rules simply do nothing to support.

About the only lesson I ever really apply in tabletop is the principle of concentration of forces. It doesn't matter if your foe outnumbers you overall, provided you bring more firepower to bear at the point of contact.


----------



## Pirate Metal Troy (Jun 2, 2008)

after 1.5 listens to this, a LOT of the things the book mentions simply do NOT apply to Warhammer. One thing I found to be of some use however:

If you completely surround an enemy, they will fight to the death, as there is simply no other option. But leave an obvious route of escape, or glimmer of survival, and the enemy may choose to flee, rather than stand and fight. 

I can think of at least a few situations where you want your opponent to run away, rather than fight, and possibly get lucky (stupid dice). Let an opponent run a single unit to an uncontested objective, and then pick off the unprotected unit in a single blow, rather than having them tie you up in close combat for 1 or more turns. Especially with the random game length coming into play, you want to stay mobile.

Most of the lessons on ground types, troop morale, and supplies are useless. Unless, of course, they're included in some sort of special scenario. But i can see you goading your opponent into making mistakes could work (even though it's pretty bad sportsmanship). I can imagine giving extensive backstory on your models (every single one) as you play would cause a rather large annoyance, or incessantly tapping your dice on the table and claiming it to be a nervous disorder of some sort, could throw your opponent off his game. But that's getting to the point of outright douche-baggery.

I will have more to discuss as i listen/read more.


----------



## KellysGrenadier (Jul 13, 2008)

I read it, and it was interesting, but there was things I disagreed with, and some of his advise doesn't gel as well today.

Fascinating read.


----------



## Kharnage (Sep 24, 2008)

It was a fantastic read, but I never applied it to 40k.


----------



## Zinj (Sep 30, 2008)

You might try reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead. You might not find any concepts that you can apply to Warhammer, but you'll definitely find some concepts that you can apply to life in general.


----------



## Concrete Hero (Jun 9, 2008)

Haven't read it, but I would like to!


----------



## Pirate Metal Troy (Jun 2, 2008)

The special edition of Sabaton's "The Art of War" Comes with a copy of the book :laugh:

Other than that have a look online for PDFs or maybe iTunes will have an Audiobook.


----------



## Xenophon (Jan 20, 2008)

Deception in 40k is taking scary units like terminators to draw fire but using a tactile to do the job. Shifting of forces to be unreadable requires to more skimmers than most army's have and than there is usually better things to do with them. Shepherding your resources is good to follow but you never gain from your opponents defeat. Most applications are abstract and it better to just learn from an experienced 40k player than a real general.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Pirate Metal Troy said:


> Other than that have a look online for PDFs or maybe iTunes will have an Audiobook.


Audiobooks will lack the Commentaries- which are worth their weight in gold.


----------



## arhain (May 6, 2008)

it is probably more applicable to warhammer fantasy than warhammer 40k

i mean when he wrote it he wasn't thinking of tanks


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

It's a very interesting book. I have to find it again. It applies to RTS pc games way more to a tabletop wargame though


----------



## Pirate Metal Troy (Jun 2, 2008)

Enigmatic maneuvering is a subject Sun Tzu adresses, and I think this can be well used in the 40k world. There's a part along the line of; "...When we are far, we must make the enemy think we are near, and when we are near we must make him think we are far away."

I can see this used as a case of careful practice of movement, staying just within certain ranges, and just out of others. such as staying just out of charge range. (being near, yet making the enemy think i am far away) Using long range weaponry to make the enemy feel as though he has nowhere to run, and that i am all around, though I am in fact, on the other side of the table, with plenty of space to myself.

Some of the ideas are practicable, while the rest (about 65% of the book) are not.


----------



## Sniper (Mar 9, 2008)

Great read and the tactics it describes focuse on a much wider arrea with consequences and lead up to the battles, and yes it still underpins many of the defense plans that modern countries employ.

Sniper


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

It's a great book and I have read it a few times. I have also read The Prince (Niccolò Machiavelli), which is a 14th Century European version that deals mainly with political power, but the use of force is part of it.

There is almost nothing in either of the books that can be used in 40k. The Art of War is very much about waring states and how to win 'War', as the title suggests. 40k is about individual minor battles, rather than an entire war. 

You might be able to use elements of The Art of War and The Prince in a long campaign though.


----------



## Wraithian (Jul 23, 2008)

I'm in agreement with darklove in this. For individual battles, Art of War, etc, are not so great. But in a protracted campaign, there is some insight to be gained from said books.


----------



## remyers001 (Jan 5, 2008)

*What's Applicable*

Sun Tzu is a wonderful read, and most of it is completely applicable to any time period, even science fiction. Tzu may tell you to study the ground your enemy has retreated over. If his columns are steady, and the ruts in the ground made by his chariots are even, then he might be leading you into an ambush. Be careful in this instance. If your enemy's columns follow different tracks and his chariots crisscross those, then his army might be in disarray, and it's time to press the pursuit. It's not that far a jump to switch tanks for chariots.

The problem with Tzu, and many other books on the art of martial endeavor, is that they apply to the maneuvering that occurs before the battle is fought. I don't remember the speaker, but the quote, "Tactics is for the amateur, Logistics for the professional," takes the day here. The one who gets the most troops and material to the battle usually wins the day. This doesn't apply to most tabletop miniature games, as each side gets the same number of points to buy their army with.

If you're looking for a book that deals more with tactical maneuvering, try Frederick the Great's "Instructiones," or Jomini's "Art of War." They both have sections that deal largely with battle tactics, though you can get most of those tips simply by reading these boards (though admittedly you'll have to read a lot of juvenile crap to find those nuggets of wisdom).

Frederick states that his army can take on one four times its size using his Oblique Attack method. That's done easily enough on the tabletop. Simply refuse a flank and throw everything else you have at one side of the table. It's all about concentration of firepower and overwhelming your opponent at a critical location on the battlefield. Finesse comes with knowing which troops are best at holding the refused flank, and which are best to assault with, and knowing how to best use the terrain on the board.


----------



## hippogryph (Oct 26, 2008)

Well considering Sun Tzu thought the greatest victory was winning without fighting I find it amusing to apply his theories and tactics to 40k or WFB. Not that it doesn't work of course.


----------



## brocaptainfarrowinit (Nov 5, 2008)

*i have read it*

:grin:"i have read it, it good book..." (_not so ancient tom proverbs_)


----------



## Revelations (Mar 17, 2008)

Err... that would be like reading a cook book and applying it to how good the meal tastes. Sure it was a decent read with a lot of points for tactitians to consider, but honestly this game allows for more than miniscul tactics in general. 

I can't set up my troops ahead of time. I can't plan an ambush. I can't hide my troops from view. I can't put my trust in the superior training and skills of my men over a few lucky die rolls. I can't properly prepare for my enemy.

While you can still do certain things; exploit weaknesses, fiegn objectives and counterman your opponents moves, it's nowhere near the scale of realism a lot of people want it to be.


----------



## remyers001 (Jan 5, 2008)

*In Reply*

Revelations, you are correct in the lack of realism; the massive noise level and smell of blood will always preclude that. Realism isn't a desired factor in a tabletop game, anyway. Simplification and abstraction will usually win out. The games that go for realism take an hour to represent a minute of actual time. Those of you born in the age of PC's will probably never know that pain (that's not aimed at you, Revelations, I have no idea of your age).

I do disagree with many of your assumptions, though. You can set up your troops ahead of time. That's what the points-buy system is all about. Ambushes are completely possible, or people wouldn't keep trying to pull off a Cannae, Trebia, or Trasimeno on the tabletop. Hiding your troops is all part of concealment, night-fighting, and LOS rules. Putting your trust in the superior arms and training of your soldiers is all about the army you choose to fight with. You can blame a loss on die rolls. It does happen. But, generally speaking, better troops, properly utilized, perform better. We must trust in that, or we would all field hordes. And, preparing for one's enemies is all part of choosing your weapon systems. Meltas are good against armor, so buy them if you expect to face armor.

Anyway, I'm not saying any of this just to be critical, but that maybe there's another way to look at what was being said by the author in question. After all, it's translated from Chinese, and rather ancient Chinese at that. We are, at best, at the mercy of the translator.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

If you treat Sun Tzu as a cook book and try to directly apply it, you will get nothing out of it.

Sun Tzu provides a manual for strategic thinking that changed my outlook to the game back when I first saw it. His focus on winning, on examining what it is to win and what the steps are on the way to achieving it, is directly applicable to much more than wargaming.

He's more useful when he's being metaphorical than when he's being literal, because the literal stuff is harder to translate to today. When he is talking about rocks rolling down mountains that makes as much (or as little) sense now as it ever did.

The prince is also worth reading, though it applies a lot less in wargaming. Macchiavelli does a good job of explaining what political power is, how you get it and how you hold onto it. He has a fairly down to earth approach though, which differs greatly to Sun Tzu's attempts to arrive at perfect generalship. NM says you need to be good, but also lucky. His opinion of his fellow human beings is not very high, so the chapters on whether it's preferable to be feared or loved, and princes who get their positions through being naughty, are pretty entertaining. Unlike Sun Tzu, this book applies to modern politics word for word.

There's no good reason not to read both books and come to your own conclusions. They are both pretty short and full of good stuff. I found both of them to be a lot more interesting than Von Clausewitz's "On War", which is pretty hard to get into.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

I would like to add that other useful sources of tactical advice come from the past century: Military publications, such as Armor magazine, or the infantry and artillery equiv. also, seek out works written by modern generals on the subject, especially Patton's writings. Military history magazines arealso useful, as long as it has clear maps of battles, and the description of the events are equally clear.

While a certain grain of salt has to be taken, as these are for real=world activities, and do not necessarily translate to the tabletop, many of the principals can be applied.


----------



## BlackApostleVilhelm (May 14, 2008)

i have read the art of war, the prince and most of patton's writings and the first two, although not directly related to tabletop battles and methods of fighting, apply to how one thinks while he is fighting. that is their purpose is to change how a warrior/general thinks and how he recognizes certain things and reacts to them. they are the thought process, which does actually help at least for me. as for patton's writings if you want tactics than read these. a bunch of the tactics i use come from his writings and how he fought and i have a little twist if my own of course. the first two apply to thought process and the last to the tactics that those thought processes administer. all of these combined i believe have greatly helped me in my battles, shit look at my record, and will help me in my upcoming career in the armed forces once i get out of college.


----------



## kazi (Jul 5, 2008)

*i liked it*

although its been quite a few years since ive read it, it has helped me quite a bit, espiacally the chapter about the diffrent kinds of grounds there are, it really helps you in making better decisions on the battlefield


----------



## Caledor (Jan 15, 2008)

I'm reading it right now (well, not at this moment, but you know what I mean) and while it doesn't translate directly to the battlefield, I agree with BlackApostleVilhelm in that it changes the way you think, so it changes how you fight. I am seriously considering making my common opponent read it show he gets out of his "charge and let the blood god/gork/some-other-hitty-guy sort it out" tactics and offer a real challenge. I doubt he'd get much out of it (he's more literal), but every little bit helps right? Overall, I like the book (got one with commentries, so it's alot more helpful) and like that it changes the way a player think then give battlefield stratagies. In that respect, its almost like a nowadays Codex Astartes.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Caledor said:


> I I am seriously considering making my common opponent read it show he gets out of his "charge and let the blood god/gork/some-other-hitty-guy sort it out" tactics and offer a real challenge.


I had to break my best friend's habit of doing this by handing him a bloody stump 3-4 games in a row. It really frustrates those that use extremely straightforward tactics when you throw in retrograde movement and sacrificial "speed bumps" that force their expensive, killy unit into a killzone.


----------



## Caledor (Jan 15, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> I had to break my best friend's habit of doing this by handing him a bloody stump 3-4 games in a row. It really frustrates those that use extremely straightforward tactics when you throw in retrograde movement and sacrificial "speed bumps" that force their expensive, killy unit into a killzone.


Believe me I'm trying, although I favour a fortress wall approach over speed bumps and kill zones. Oh, and a good flank attack. Can't forget that. So far, my battleline has held no matter what he throws at it. Still, he hasn't changed and every time I suggest tactics, piously claims that he uses them. But, like Master Sun says, "Know yourself, know your enemy, and victory is never in doubt. Not in one hundred battles". I'm pretty early into my hundred, so this is gonna take a while.


----------



## Farseer Beltiac (Jul 11, 2008)

Sun Tzu said the urge to kill is as common as the urge to procreate.....yeah, I'm familiar with his quotes, fairly radical I'd say but truthful....


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Caledor said:


> Believe me I'm trying, although I favour a fortress wall approach over speed bumps and kill zones. Oh, and a good flank attack. Can't forget that. So far, my battleline has held no matter what he throws at it. Still, he hasn't changed and every time I suggest tactics, piously claims that he uses them. But, like Master Sun says, "Know yourself, know your enemy, and victory is never in doubt. Not in one hundred battles". I'm pretty early into my hundred, so this is gonna take a while.


Try luring him into kill zones, you will do much more if you learn the dirtiest trick in any general's arsenal: false retreat. by luring your friend in, you set his units up for failure, and on a scale that bunching your units together won't. group you units in groups no larger than what you can effectively use together and not A) lose the benefit of cover, and B) have them get in each others way.
by adjusting the way you fight, you will convince him of his errors,:laugh:it just sounds like you are neglecting to beat him with the bloody stump after removing it.:laugh:


----------

