Can someone please give me some decent ideas for the start of a game. My positional play seems to be my strength, but there seems to be very few openings out there that support this style of play. Any suggestions?

QGD is definately one. So are some variations of the English. KIA is another I believe, although I think that can get sharp pretty quickly later on.

Caro-Kann.

Hmm I'd say not really, but that could just be my choice of variations ( I play it excluseively Vs e4). Could you give some variations Fear?

1. d4 is good for positional play. Its advantage is that it gives White more control over tactical surprises and often provides more lasting initiative and pressure.

My recommendation:

against e4 try the sicilian kan or taimanov, the kan was played even by karpov.Against d4 there are the slavs(some of them are tactical too) and the nimzo/bogo/queen indian complex

If your strength at level 1400 is positional play, you really need to continue with e4 and not avoid complications. Most likelly the tactical misstakes you do are outright blunders, and if you try to avoid that by going the positional way, you will hamper your improvement.

Well normally people who play positional use 1.d4, I prefer d4. your better off learning some good d4 openings. And Caro kann as black.

One day you will face 1.d4 e5 and all that positional glory goes out the window.  You'd be better to just work on tactics. All the cool kids are doing it. There are plenty of ways to throw you off:

1.d4 e5/1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5

1.c4 b5

1.Nf3 Nc6 2.d4 d5 which can get pretty rough if you can't make it slow again;

1.f4 e5

So you can't avoid tactics. Every game you ever play will have tactics regardless of what opening you use.

You should work on tactics for sure, but that doesn't need to reflect what opening you play. I didn't play tactical openings, just solved lots of tactics and I was fine in that area, and then could concentrate on the positional stuff that I love lol. I like that stuff not because it's more important than tactics but simply because I like that part of the game, I just back it up with tactics.

But the good thing about 1 d4 is that most tries for early tactics by black are very loose and give white a favorable game. I'm not saying they're nothing to worry about, but comparing it to e4 there's the sicilian a sound way to complicate, which is going to cause more problems than lots of traps you have to avoid to get a very good position. When I play d4 I figure if my opponent tries for too much at least he'll have to take away all the solidity of his position, when his position can crack at any moment. And otherwise I usually have the initiative and my opponent not much counterplay, like in the QG for example.

Yeah. I played 1.d4 and then switched to playing 1.Nf3 to avoid ...e5 gambits. If you don't know the theory (which I don't) you could be in trouble. I just want to deal with as little theory as I have to. 1.c4 isn't so bad and you can get away with just knowing what to do rather than knowing a lot of theory. 

Most people answer 1.d4 wildly and end up shooting themselves in the foot.

I found it necessary to know some theory against the tricky albin countergambit, but only like the first 7 moves or so so it's not that bad. Now that I'm somewhat prepared I usually do well against the gambit. Once I get rid of that nuisance, I get into positions I like when black chooses the calmer moves.

 I sometimes use the Englund Gambit.

I avoid it because of the theory. Maybe it's just lazyness, or something.

There is some fun in accepting a gambit and defeating it though.

d4 is good in the QG white has atleast a small advantage in all lines and as Elubas stated above if black tries to make the game more tactical then usually he has to compromise his position in some way. A good line for learning the importance of pawn structure(also a personal favourite) would be the QGD exchange variation where the infamous "minority attack" shows how a single pawn weakness can put Black under long-lasting pressure.

If you put a top class player who only plays positionally against a top class player who only plays tactically, tactics will win every time.

Fact of life got to work on all aspects of the game, as Anthony says up there in his post.

You play 1 Nf3 expecting a nice quiet Reti you get

1..Nc3

1.. d5

all playable and all tactical cant avoid it only seek to control it.

Sceadungen, I don't really agree with you on your first claim, unless you are saying a top class player who sucks at tactics will lose to one who is good, but that doesn't make any sense, as whether or not they want to play positionally, they would never be a top class player if their tactics were not very strong in any case. there would probably be more draws for the positional one though. Two top class players with the same rating regardless of style should have about equal chances to win, though there are other small factors like specific preparation for the opponent that might give one a slight advantage.

But I do think tactics are the most important at the amateur level, but he shouldn't neglect everything else.

for black the

philidor hanham variation very good positional opening.

white usually goes for it all the time.

for white the queens openings and gambit. which leads to a slower positional game

The KID, the Gruenfeld, the Benoni / Benko are all sound ways to complicate against 1. d4. It may just be that a lot of people spend their time studying the Sicilian or the French and pay less attention to responses to 1.d4, but this hasn't put me off playing 1. e4 yet.