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!
A slick and simple scenario. On point with the theme. Toastmortem already tackled the one thing to be concern about - what if there is no legal placement, so no more questions here
Only thing else I can point out, but many of the submissions have that from what I've seen, is that the lore intro is sooooo long. One thing I like about OPR is its (or more Gaetano's) ability to condense a lot of flavor in the special rule names and keeping the mission backgrounds short and evocative.
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 love the theme, not gonna lie. And not gonna lie, this needs some polishing considering the notation. What concerns me the most, is the "Part of the core" rule, which states: "Whenever a player unit takes a wound roll one die and apply the effect...", then the table below states that on 1-5 you remove a model from that unit. How do this applies to models with Tough(X)? Tough(X) states that such model needs to take multiple wounds to be killed. And the table as is, implies that it's a one-hit-kill.
I love the theme, not gonna lie. And not gonna lie, this needs some polishing considering the notation. What concerns me the most, is the "Part of the core" rule, which states: "Whenever a player unit takes a wound roll one die and apply the effect...", then the table below states that on 1-5 you remove a model from that unit. How do this applies to models with Tough(X)? Tough(X) states that such model needs to take multiple wounds to be killed. And the table as is, implies that it's a one-hit-kill.
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 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!
