Play mission
GF - Ravage Run [JOB APPLICATION]'s itch.io pageResults
| Criteria | Rank | Score* | Raw Score |
| Concepts & Originality | #13 | 3.878 | 3.958 |
| Adherence to Theme | #30 | 3.266 | 3.333 |
| Overall | #34 | 3.252 | 3.319 |
| Rules Clarity | #57 | 2.613 | 2.667 |
Ranked from 24 ratings. Score is adjusted from raw score by the median number of ratings per game in the jam.
Leave a comment
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
Comments
Hello, thank you for participating in the first OPR Mission Jam! Please email marketing@onepagerules.com so that we can send you the participation models! Please include 'OPR Mission Jam Participation Minis' in the subject line.
Conceptually, this is really good. The system is coming online, growing stronger with each person coming past. But, where do you start? The ravage markers definitely need noted on a map. Other than that, I really like this. It means the battlefield is part of the enemy. I might also make a second safe zone to contest, give each army something to fight over especially if we have a slower army like dwarfs.
I like the concept of this mission, though it would be HUGELY improved with a deployment diagram that indicates locations of objectives, ravage markers, etc. By my reading, each deployment zone will start with at least one ravage marker within it?
As I stated before, the Fire & Shrapnel example submission does not have a diagram, and it was described as "correct submission", so I just followed the rules of the assignment. In normal circumstances there would be a diagram.
Correct. There's ravage node on the edge of each deployment zone, with a huge "vacate the premise immediately" sign on it.
I get that the sample lacked a diagram, but they also indicated we should look at published adventures (which almost always do). Some missions have easy-to-explain deployments that don't really need a diagram...but this one would be improved by one.
I can't fault how you read the rules though, I just disagree. Best of luck, it looks fun.
Oh, no, no, there is no disagreement here! The diagram is a must for this setup. It's just that - how I understand the rules of engagement. Best of luck to you too!
Overall looks really good. But Ravage Agent says it triggers when "a model activates" - does that mean that a squad of 10 activating near a ravage marker will immediately trigger the ravage agent 10 times? (And is probably wiped out?)
And does the growth at the start of the next turn happen "once, if it killed something" or "once for each thing killed". Because the combination of those two seems like it would very rapidly devour everything if something strays too near.
Or was it meant to be "when a unit activates" and only kill one member of the squad, before growing next round?
Here's the logic behind it. The Ravage Agent does trigger even when a model just activates in it, but the Ravage Agent Spread happens at the beginning of the next turn. So you can lose even more than one model to the Ravage Agent, but you are able to reposition your troops, so they are not caught again by the next spread. The board in this scenario can become externally deadly if players are inattentive about unit placement. And that's the point. At the same time, that is why the Ravage Agent deals a hit not an automatic wound. A 6 does not create a casualty, so the Ravage Agent Spread is not triggered. Also, all Regeneration rules etc still apply. An additional fail safe I thought about was if you roll a double, it means that only one marker gets only a single additional inch... but for the sake of the theme of impending doom I decided to roll with it.
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.
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!