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.

 kodos wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Were 7E dialed back to 2E or 3E model counts, it'd be a much better game.

Couldn't model counts be adjusted down by simply playing smaller point battles ?

40k with 750 points and without maelstrom mission cards works fine

My sense is that 40k 7E plays OK in the 750-1250 range, 1500 if you're both taking a Superheavy or Gargantuan. And yeah, ignore Maelstrom RAW.

I am sure if you reduce the model count it would make the 40k game less awful to play.But I would not consider it 'ok' or 'fine'.

If you compared the resulting game play to other games that have rule written specifically for the intended game play.
40k is still a poor rule set, with lots of issues that need to be addressed to arrive at 'ok' or 'fine' game play when compared to good rule sets.

40k 7E is an awful rule set. Smaller games makes it more tolerable.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 7E is an awful rule set. Smaller games makes it more tolerable.

How? As someone pointed out:

Spiritseer
3x Winderider
3x Scatterbikes
Wraithknight

is only 495 points. That still includes all the bad rules of 7E. Lower points =/= better games.

That's no problem. 500 pts per side, only 8 Eldar models, so the game will play quickly. Also note that scale game is probably on a 3x4 table with a lot of cover...

And as I'm playing with friends, it's probably got a fair amount of beer to go with the salty snacks.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 7E is an awful rule set. Smaller games makes it more tolerable.

I find the exact opposite to be true. Larger games allow you to weather alpha strike much better and having multiple key units as opposed to one allows you to respond with deadly force even if you take a big hit. Most likely in order to deliver a strong alpha - units had to overextend our of cover or deep strike in the wide open to deal their damage - IMO the game plays best at 2500 points plus.

Lanrak wrote:

However , alternating game phases with simultaneous resolution, has given the simplest rules

I agree

IGYG with reactions is more complex but also give the possibility of more diversity between faction and units
But it also need the focus set on movement and manoeuvre which would need a reduction in movement and weapon range and make attacks from flanks or behind a unit more important (different rules for cover and area terrain)

alternating unit activations is best for games were long range shooting is the way to go and movement/position is not important

alternating phases are somewhere inbetween

But then we were working on keeping the core rules familiar to the existing 40k players.By simply using what was already there, in more efficient and effective ways..

This would be a simple IGYG with streamlined reactions with the core mechanics based on those rules that did not changed from 2nd to 7th


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 7E is an awful rule set. Smaller games makes it more tolerable.

I find the exact opposite to be true. Larger games allow you to weather alpha strike much better and having multiple key units as opposed to one allows you to respond with deadly force even if you take a big hit. Most likely in order to deliver a strong alpha - units had to overextend our of cover or deep strike in the wide open to deal their damage - IMO the game plays best at 2500 points plus.

Problem with larger games is the codex imbalance

If you play 2500 points, one faction can put exactly this on the table while another get so much free stuff and additional special rules that the force is worth 4000 points.
In small scale this is limited.

And an Eldar force from above would struggle against some other lists (specially those that have good starter formations)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's no problem. 500 pts per side, only 8 Eldar models, so the game will play quickly. Also note that scale game is probably on a 3x4 table with a lot of cover...

And as I'm playing with friends, it's probably got a fair amount of beer to go with the salty snacks.

Oh my what happened. Did someone hack your account? This is not the JohnHwangDD that I know of. The JohnHwangDD always made great counter points when he viewed someone was wrong or if he disagreed with him if it was an opinion. So far people are saying something wrong, but instead of you giving a good counter all I see is "if you play my way 40K is sort of workable." Just like I told you before, a lot of people don't want to play your way, but play their way.

So how come your answer is always "play my way" instead of addressing exactly what they are saying. Your counters or "rebuttal" if you would call that doesn't address what they are really saying.

I think you guys misunderstand me. I don't particularly enjoy playing 40k 7E, because I think it's not a particularly good game. Playing small means I spend less time playing and more time drinking and socializing. Same with 40k being Igo-Ugo -- it speeds play compared to these alternating reactive games. Cutting the playing time down is a win in my book.

For me, 40k 7E isn't something I want to spend 5x the time on. But, if you guys like to play big games of 7E, that's great.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think you guys misunderstand me. I don't particularly enjoy playing 40k 7E, because I think it's not a particularly good game. Playing small means I spend less time playing and more time drinking and socializing. Same with 40k being Igo-Ugo -- it speeds play compared to these alternating reactive games. Cutting the playing time down is a win in my book.

For me, 40k 7E isn't something I want to spend 5x the time on. But, if you guys like to play big games of 7E, that's great.

That's the biggest cop out I've ever seen. If that's the case, put down 40k, go to a bar, and just drink. Boom, 8th edition.

Or find a game you do enjoy playing with your friends and add beer?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think you guys misunderstand me. I don't particularly enjoy playing 40k 7E, because I think it's not a particularly good game. Playing small means I spend less time playing and more time drinking and socializing. Same with 40k being Igo-Ugo -- it speeds play compared to these alternating reactive games. Cutting the playing time down is a win in my book.

For me, 40k 7E isn't something I want to spend 5x the time on. But, if you guys like to play big games of 7E, that's great.

Thanks for the explanation. Now it all makes sense. Now that is the JohHwandDD I know.

As for other people telling you to play another game. WTF? I can see where he is coming from. He wants to play, and he makes the best with what he is delt with.

@Kodos .
I think you misunderstood.I wanted to keep the familiar aspects of the rules, but re work them so they actually generate the game play players expect.(Intuitive and proportional results.)

So we keep the phases players are familiar with, but use them in an alternating phase game turn with simultaneous resolution.
(Putting all movement back into the movement phase to add the tactical decisions back. )

Also using just ONE resolution method ,(opposed values on a table,)along with direct representation , to cover all in game interactions.
This means re-setting the stat line to represent the units in game abilities in more detail .(So we do not need special rules for everything apart from standard infantry. )

Why does every one appear to want to keep all the errors made from 3rd to 7th ed in terms of game development?

The skirmish rule set hacked up to speed up play, and then patched up with loads of special rules and additional systems that slow the game down.
Eg they removed all the tactical depth and character , and just added pointless complication instead.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Or find a game you do enjoy playing with your friends and add beer?

Oh, I do boardgaming and such. With beer.

But if someone really want to play 40k, as a good friend, I am willing to humor their interest. Just as they do for me.

That said, no, I'm not starting over to buy and build all new armies for some new wargame. Playing 40k with my existing armies is better than starting over.

Fair enough.

Oh, yeah, those of you saying "it's a cop out" - as if I care whether you think it's a cop out or not. It's even less of an argument than me saying that I'm willing to tolerate the occasional game of 7E as part of being a friend.

I think you misunderstood.I wanted to keep the familiar aspects of the rules, but re work them so they actually generate the game play players expect.(Intuitive and proportional results.)

So we keep the phases players are familiar with, but use them in an alternating phase game turn with simultaneous resolution.

I understand quite well, it is just not the only option. I prefer the IGYG+Reactions to gain the same result.
Main reason for this is that it allows to make factions more different in play style by just changing the reactions available, it scales with the progress in game (first rounds were everything is to far away to trigger a reaction play faster while as soon as troops get closer reactions trigger and make it more interesting) and it scales good with the model count (alternating things is running into problems if the are extreme differences in the amount of units on the table, like in 40k with one army having 3 and another one 20 units on the table) if the reactions are not limited (so the army with less units will make more reactions while itself triggers less which add a balance between action/reaction)

And not everything from 3rd to 7th was bad. It was just GW that kept all bad ideas so that the new and good ones didn't really help to improve the game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh, yeah, those of you saying "it's a cop out" - as if I care whether you think it's a cop out or not. It's even less of an argument than me saying that I'm willing to tolerate the occasional game of 7E as part of being a friend.

How? It's the same as saying "Oh I prefer driving 1 mile races over 5 mile races because I like the fresh air but I don't like racing". That doesn't seem moronic to you?

I kinda would like to see something along the lines of what wizkids did with MechWarrior. Its kinda of "you go, I go" but with several differences. First you got 1 order for every 300 points in your army. For warhammer it would have to be something like for every 500 points due to the sheer size of points in armies. You use that order on one unit putting a token next to it. The your opponent does the same. On the next turn the order stays and if you choose to use that unit 2 consecutive turn it takes an unsavable wound as you are pushing the unit to its limits. You cannot push a unit 2 turns in a row. At the end of the turn all units that moved the turn prior and did not push to move this turn remove their tokens.

I really liked that method of play. The games usually only lasted about 45 minutes and usually went for about 10-15 turns (unless it was a very infantry heavy game in which case it went to about an hour and sometimes more than 20 turns).

 jreilly89 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh, yeah, those of you saying "it's a cop out" - as if I care whether you think it's a cop out or not. It's even less of an argument than me saying that I'm willing to tolerate the occasional game of 7E as part of being a friend.

How?

If you don't like a game, but your friend does, you just play it from time to time just because you want to play a game with your friend.
That's also the only reason why I still play 40k

 kodos wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh, yeah, those of you saying "it's a cop out" - as if I care whether you think it's a cop out or not. It's even less of an argument than me saying that I'm willing to tolerate the occasional game of 7E as part of being a friend.

How?

If you don't like a game, but your friend does, you just play it from time to time just because you want to play a game with your friend.
That's also the only reason why I still play 40k

That just seems like a waste. Why not be honest with your friend and say "hey, I like hanging out, but I'm not a big fan of Warhammer. Can we go get a beer and a burger?" That's the adult thing to do.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh, yeah, those of you saying "it's a cop out" - as if I care whether you think it's a cop out or not. It's even less of an argument than me saying that I'm willing to tolerate the occasional game of 7E as part of being a friend.

How? It's the same as saying "Oh I prefer driving 1 mile races over 5 mile races because I like the fresh air but I don't like racing". That doesn't seem moronic to you?

What is wrong with playing what you paid for, even though you don't like the rules? What is wrong trying to get some value out of the time you put into collection, painting and modelling? If that is not the case then what is wrong with playing with your friends. Heaven forbid JohnHwangDD is a good friend and let's his friends have fun playing a game they like even though he may not like it as much?

Does this mean he is better than your now? After all it seems you will not do things for your friends that they may enjoy and you dislike.

Maybe it's time to lock up the thread now, because we have just gone way off topic now.

The thread can stay open - posters just need to keep Rule Number Two in mind please! Further off-topic posts will be deleted/poster account will be temporarily suspended. Thanks!

See above. Thanks ~ Manchu

@Kodos.
I am aware you could go the route of alternating game turns with reactions.
However, this always leads to far more complicated rules as you have to additionally write clearly how and when the interactions occur.
And there is the tendency to try to script how you think units interact, especially if the developer wants units to act in specific ways.This is one of the main errors in 40k game development from 3rd to 7th ed IMO.

''..We made a cool model, lets make it work in a cool way with special rules ...''

The GW dev team often forced the unit to work how they thought it t should, and became blind to how other people could use the unit.This has lead to over complication and abysmal levels of game balance.

Rather than let the players find out how a unit can work for their play style , just from the stat line the models have.

I have no problem with adding a few special rules for 'flavor'.But relying to special rules to make the game work how you want is bad game development IMO.

Simple alternating phases, with simultaneous resolution allows units to behave how the player wants, this is important IMO.

The stat line should define ALL in game unit interaction.(with a few minor exceptions for a dozen or so special rules perhaps.)

Can you please highlight the good ideas the dev team implemented in 3rd to 7th ed 40k. I an honestly struggling to find any...

Lanrak wrote:
@Kodos.
I am aware you could go the route of alternating game turns with reactions.
However, this always leads to far more complicated rules as you have to additionally write clearly how and when the interactions occur.

It doesn't need to be complicated at all. It is a design decision if you want to keep reactions simple or not.
Of course they will not be as simple as alternating phases (if there is no interaction between active and passive player, eg if psionic powers can be active banned and not just denied by a save from the affected unit, you lost the advantage of being more simple and need the same "complicated" rules for reactions) but don't need to be as complicated as the 40k reactions.

Lanrak wrote:

Can you please highlight the good ideas the dev team implemented in 3rd to 7th ed 40k. I an honestly struggling to find any...

This now depends from the point of view, compared to 2nd edi, changes in later edition which were good ideas (but bad implemented):
the vehicle damage system, universal special rules, streamlined faction rules/force organisations, mission design (5th), IGYG+Reactions,

I have no problem with adding a few special rules for 'flavor'.But relying to special rules to make the game work how you want is bad game development IMO.

from a design point, I would remove special rules at all and just keep a few basic traits that are needed (like antigrav let you ignore terrain while moving etc) to keep a SciFi game futuristic.

Simple alternating phases, with simultaneous resolution allows units to behave how the player wants, this is important IMO.

This is important, but not the only way

An example would be the battle of Macragge, while nearly all systems let you play the big battle on the surface, it is nearly impossible to get the last battle of the first company working without a reaction system
(2000 points would be something like 50 Terminators get attacked by hundreds of small bugs, and they will overrun the Terminators without a real chance because of their limited activations and killing potential. 10 units can only attack and kill 10 other units maximum in one turn, while the tyranids have 40 units on the table and can reach the unit for close combat in 2 turns. without lucky dice rolls in the only shooting phase, the bugs will win. with a reaction system, the bugs need to be more carefull and thinbk about what they do to win the game instead of running straight into combat)

@Kodos.
Even if the reactions rules end up as a couple of paragraphs, that is still extra rules you have to learn and understand.So using any form of additional reaction rules on top of the alternating game turn is adding complication the alternating phase game turn does not need.

And the simplest reaction rules, (assuming that core targeting rules are used as a basis,) tend to bloat when players start asking the usual questions...

'...Why do I get the same chance to react to a unit at long range darting from cover to cover 4" apart, as I do at a unit that is only a few inches away and spends all of its movement in my LOS..''
'..When does the attack take place at the start of the enemy movement, or when they move into my units LOS and range?If the unit falls back from my attack where does it fall back from and to..'
And these are followed with at least a dozen similar questions on reactions triggers and consequences to timings and actions.(Believe me I know this from experience.. )

As the game turn simply schedules the player interaction, the way units interact should be covered by the stat line.
Trying to change how units react with additional rules bolted on the the game turn is not the most elegant solution.And always lead to pointless complication and some times 'developers forcing concepts onto units' which never ends well IMO.

I was always intending to use opposed values on a table to generate a proportional chance of success for combat interaction.This way attacker and target units skill are taken into account.(And this allows much more diversity to be generated from the stat line.)

You replied to the what were the good ideas implemented in 3rd to 7 th ed 40k...
''This now depends from the point of view, compared to 2nd ed, changes in later edition which were good ideas (but bad implemented[i]): ''

What ever the intentions of the game developers were to improve game play ,the poor implementation simply meant they game play got worse not better. And this was my point .

..1)the vehicle damage system, 2)universal special rules, 3)streamlined faction rules/force organisations,4) mission design (5th), 5)IGYG+Reactions,

1a)What GW actually did... Adding a completely different way to resolve damage for vehicles has created lots of game play issues.

1b)What I would do differently ..Using a resolution system that covers all units in the game in a similar way would be much better.

2)If something is applied universally it is not special.Is something is special it is not universally applied.
This is proof the core rules and stat line are not doing the job they are supposed to do.If you need to use so many special rules you need 3 different names for the sub sets!!!''USRs 'codex special rules' and 'special snowflake' special rules.

I believe if the game developers had addressed the core issues with the game play by altering the core rules to cover the intended game play.(What ever they decided it should be.)There would just be the core rules and about a dozen special rules.(The last time I looked 40k had over eighty special rules .)

3) The function based F.O.C is simply too restrictive on thematic options.And so needs additional rules to work properly.IF the F.o.C was based on unit rarity like every other war game out there, it would allow much higher levels of diversity and yet allow much closer levels of balance.

4) Proper campaign books with interleaved scenarios for narrative play would have been better.And random mission cards for attacker and defender to generate random scenarios for pick up an pay games would have been better too IMO.
I am a fan of missions and would like them to be better implemented in the game play of 40k.

5)IGoYGo game turn with too little tactical maneuver is a bad idea, all the way from 3rd to 7th ed.
Bolting on a reaction mechanic is not a good enough fix .Only if you dropped the model count to skirmish size would it be a viable option. (EG like Infinity.)

I am a bit puzzled by your example ...

''An example would be the battle of Macragge, while nearly all systems let you play the big battle on the surface, it is nearly impossible to get the last battle of the first company working without a reaction system
(2000 points would be something like 50 Terminators get attacked by hundreds of small bugs, and they will overrun the Terminators without a real chance because of their limited activations and killing potential. 10 units can only attack and kill 10 other units maximum in one turn, while the tyranids have 40 units on the table and can reach the unit for close combat in 2 turns. without lucky dice rolls in the only shooting phase, the bugs will win. with a reaction system, the bugs need to be more carefull and think about what they do to win the game instead of running straight into combat)''

The level of interaction and effect each unit has on other units in the game is decided by the stat lines and the combat resolution methods not the game turn mechanic used.

What is with all this "alternating turns, and moving out of turn" adds complication? Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit does it, and there is no problems at all. Hell it can even be your turn, but your opponent gets to mover or shoot before you can even move or shoot. And it causes no issues at all.

Are we just theory hammering now? At least when someone says something a lot of people are having experience using those systems, so how can someone say they are wrong without actually trying it?

Lanrak wrote:

'...Why do I get the same chance to react to a unit at long range darting from cover to cover 4" apart, as I do at a unit that is only a few inches away and spends all of its movement in my LOS..''
'..When does the attack take place at the start of the enemy movement, or when they move into my units LOS and range?If the unit falls back from my attack where does it fall back from and to..'

And these are followed with at least a dozen similar questions on reactions triggers and consequences to timings and actions.(Believe me I know this from experience.. )

Stop thinking how GW would write rules.
These 2 questions and similar ones only come up if rules are written in the unclear and messy GW style

A clear short paragraph of reaction rules would not allow room for such misinterpretation
just because GW need 10 pages of rules and examples, it does not mean that everyone would write rules in the same sloppy way

An example, a simple reaction rule, answering the above 2 questions in a simple way:

Units act, Models react

Every time a unit is chosen to do something, the unit is activated and perform an Action.
Every unit can only be selected once per Phase, performing a single Action and has to completely finish it before the next unit is activated. No unit can perform 2 Actions during a Phase nor can the player interrupt an Action of a unit to change it or activate another unit (eg stop moving a unit because the player realise that it would block another unit and moving the other unit first).
Fleeing Models or those that are out of formation can only perform reactions and no action.

If a unit finish an Action all enemy models within 8 inch of a model of that unit can perform a Reaction.
Only affected models can perform a reaction but don’t have to if the player don’t want to react. The target of the reaction can only be the unit which triggered it.

Possible Reactions are:

Return Fire
Reacting models can shoot with -1 to hit at the enemy unit.

Retreat
The reacting models make a single move directly away from the enemy unit.

Counter-Attack
The reacting models can make melee attacks against enemy models in point blank range.

Counter-Charge
The models can make a single move and attack the enemy unit in close combat. This is handled like it would be a normal charge action.

All models use Retreat and Return Fire as standard Reaction. The army list states which other Reactions can be used or if special Reactions are available.

The level of interaction and effect each unit has on other units in the game is decided by the stat lines and the combat resolution methods not the game turn mechanic used.

Ok, I am not sure if I get you, but striking back in clsoe combat for you would be an additional statline instead of a action/reaction mechanic?
So there are 2 values, one for active attacks and another one for striking back, or the striking back is just a defensive value that reduce the opponents attack value!?

Are we just theory hammering now? At least when someone says something a lot of people are having experience using those systems, so how can someone say they are wrong without actually trying it?

I would never say that something is not working, but as I said changing those things would not solve the basic problems.

Lord of the Rings Skirmish had its own problem with too strong special characters, but I would not blame the alternating phase of being the source of the problem.

And the past 5 years now I tried different kind of systems (also OOP, fan written ones, free download, 40k Mods for other games etc) and made my decision of what worked best for the 40k I want to play.
Of course people who want to play a different kind of game like me want a different style of rules (some want a more basic version like AoS or Epic in 28mm, while other want a much more detailed one).

Also with so much different systems out there I want a game that is not just a copy&paste thing but has it's own style (If I want to play Bolt Action, I go and play Bolt Action, I don't need a 40k Mod for this game, even if it is funny, 2 games with the complete same mechanic get boring after a while).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

1a)What GW actually did... Adding a completely different way to resolve damage for vehicles has created lots of game play issues.

1b)What I would do differently ..Using a resolution system that covers all units in the game in a similar way would be much better.

I pick this one as an example to explain it.
Having another resolution system to introduce a stronger or strict separated rock/paper/scissor system is not a bad idea.

It is there to keep anti-infantry and anti vehicle weapons separate from each other.
The implementation was not perfect at first because you always needed the lucky 6 to kill something.

Of course GW messed this up even more and in 7th we have the problem that anti infantry weapons kill vehicles more effective than special anti-tank weapons

A good implementation of the system would have been if vehicles get vehicle armour instead of toughness and armour save, which is more or less a combined value, but get wounded normally and have health points.

And now, anti-tank weapons just add 7 (instead of the random D6) to their strength and subtract the AP value to calculate the strength against vehicles (so that an anti infantry weapon with S7 and AP4 is not better against vehicles because of its high ROF than an Anti Tank weapon with S7 AP2)

the same resolution system, no problems about wording (a penetration is not a wound) and you get a clear rock/paper system which was the main idea at first

@Kodos.
What exactly does alternating game turns with reactions rules actually add to the game play that alternating phases can not, other than making the rules more complicated?

Ok as you were kind enough to write out the reaction criteria.

''If a unit finish an Action all enemy models within 8 inch of a model of that unit can perform a Reaction.
Only affected models can perform a reaction but don’t have to if the player don’t want to react. The target of the reaction can only be the unit which triggered it. ''

As units can not perform more than one action per phase,does that mean models in units that have performed an action can not react , as that would mean parts of the unit have taken 2 actions per turn, or do reactions not count as unit actions.
Where do you measure the 8" from and to?
How much of the model has to be within 8" to react?
etc.

Basically any additional reaction rules just add pointless complication .This is why I am not a fan of this .
Standard alternating game turns work fine in games with enough tactical maneuver into effective weapons range.Skirmish games can work with reactions as it all models vs models focused rules.

With alternating phases using simultaneous resolution, models have WS to show how good the models is hitting the enemy in assault, and a 'Dodge skill' to show how hard the unit is to hit in close combat.(Initiative has no relevance with simultaneous resolution so it is replaced with the' Dodge' skill.)

So player A rolls to hit in assault,(Compares their WS vs the enemy Dodge skill to find the score needed to hit.)
Defender rolls armour saves then attacker rolls to damage.
Record the damage done.(We use D10 for wound dice.)

Player B rolls to hit in assault,(Compares their WS vs the enemy Dodge skill to find the score needed to hit.)
Defender rolls armour saves then attacker rolls to damage.
Record the damage done.

After all units have performed all attacks remove casualties.

I agree that 40k is quite unique and very challenging to write rules for.
However, I prefer to use the most straight forward rules that deliver the detail the game play needs .
As this removes pointless complication in the foundation of the rules .

I also agree that 40k has several issues that have never been allowed to be addressed by the GW dev team .

''Having another resolution system to introduce a stronger or strict separated rock/paper/scissor system is not a bad idea. ''
Adding pointless complication that adds imbalance to the system is a really bad idea.

If we give models armour values from 1 to 10.
And weapons armour penetration values from 1 to 10.
We could use this in a table like the 'to wound table' to generate proportional saves.

And if we want to separate heavy armoured vehicles , and specialist anti tank weapons from the anti infantry weapons.
We can use the classification 'Tank' on heavily armoured vehicles .
And make it so only weapons with the 'Anti Tank' classification can cause physical damage to 'Tanks'.

This lets all units have the same stat profile, and resolve damage in a similar way.And uses very simple classification to separate tanks and anti tank weapons from other units and weapons.