It should be apparent to all that Dust is more about style than substance - it is, after all, the product of a gentleman who was apparently trying to do a WWII anime. With that in mind, I offer the following explanation of the 'grenatewerfer' title to those who seem to be wanting the Hans to be an even bigger piece of cheat for 25 points than it is (and it's pretty nasty already: An artillery weapon that doesn't use reloads, and one of the most vicious anti-tank attacks in the game): Look at the rockets the Hans uses. Half of them look like large stick grenades. Soldiers, with their fondness for nicknames, would simply call it at 'grenatewerfer,' especially since the Germans don't have the man-carried launchers - it's an 'ours is bigger' joke.

Now, can we get people to stop whining for the grenade rule to it? That is unseemly, considering the Hans' considerable advantages.

Warboss Krag said:

The Allies get their cheatin' Phasers and Jump units, give us poor deprived Axis players our cheatin' Hans.

It already is a cheat, so much so that forget having the heroes available separately, give me the Hans as a separate boxed set!!! (Yes, I use all three factions. The Hans is the best walker for the price, hands down.)

I'll only say a few things on this issue.

1. It is the only weapon in the game which has grenade in its title but doesn't have the grenade rule.
2. Spray attacks used to ignore cover in the first rule-write (see the text on Nebelwerfer).

Those two things combined lead me to believe the Grenatwerfer was supposed to have cover-ignoring capabilities. As far as it being a cheat, I don't recall in at least 30 games of using it, ever once having killed anything with its Artillery strike. Exchanging 2 actions for a 66.67% chance at my opponent losing 1 action doesn't strike me as cheating. Allies and SSU having some type if cover-ignoring weapon on 80% of their units (UGL's, Grenades, Molotov's, Flame & Sulfer weapons), and Allies Phasers ignoring Armor on the other hand…

BTW, I play all 3 factions. And if the title of the weapon or the Spray rule hadn't left evidence if how it was before it got split into 3 rules (spray, burst, and grenade), I'd not even consider it an issue. But as it stands now, I'm **** curious what the intent was.