This mission features a cool, ever-growing hazard that makes for a desperate escape. Some rules are a bit fiddly, but the theme is strong! It's tough to visualize the initial setup of the ravage markers, shelter entrance, and relay nodes without a diagram. The "Ravage Agent Release" rule causes the Area of Effect (AoE) around specific ravage markers to grow each round. Keeping track of which of the five markers have had their AoE increased, and by how much, could become quite a bookkeeping challenge during gameplay. The rule states that the shelter entrance marker is "removed from the battlefield" when a unit evacuates through it. This might initially confuse players, as the main goal involves this marker, and its removal could imply it's a one-time objective rather than a continuous evacuation point. The scoring for this section lists multiple conditions, each stating "Scores 1VP if...". While typically cumulative, the wording doesn't explicitly state that a player can gain 1 VP for each condition met, which could lead to ambiguity about whether these are mutually exclusive or stack.
Viewing post in GF - Ravage Run [JOB APPLICATION] jam comments
This deserves a full reply! :D
Considering the absence of a board diagram, the "Fire and Shrapnel" example mission does not have one. The assignment rules state to use provided template without changing the format and to stick to standard OPR mission format. So it is a conscious choice to write about all the markers placement in text.
About the book keeping, a color coded die next to or on a marker easily solves that problem. It is the only "moving part" of the mechanic.
About the shelter entrance marker, I agree, the following wording would be more suiting: "...that unit is removed from the battlefield scoring 1VP."
Last but not least, the Secure and Protect - I decided on this form of notation, as I noticed, that Gaetano assumes a level of... logical approach to the topic from his players, across all themes and systems in OPR. Your critic is valid from a designer standpoint for making the rules foolproof, at the same time the cumulative effect isn't clearly denied, therefore it applies as a logical conclusion, which goes with the overall OPR rules flow.
Thank you for taking the time to leave a comment, much appreciated!