Fulcrum by Dignan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash_19
Fulcrum is a great map, but I don’t consider it as being among the best of the best. The level three height just to the front right of the start zone is the most problematic part of the design, closely followed by the placement of the water (even considering how sometimes you don’t sacrifice any movement when splashing your figures in water). I have seen so many games on this map turn into a game of “come at me, bro” due to range setting up on the level three height by the start zone. And with no glyphs, there doesn’t seem to be much incentive to move from that position if you’re running range into melee. The jungle placement is well done and helps approaching melee forces, as do a couple height positions, but I just don’t feel like it’s enough. A well-placed screen can be rough to punch through on this map as well.  |
My thoughts on Fulcrum have developed a bit over time. After reading other positive reviews by WoS judges and some additional comments by others sharing their feelings on the map, I have tried to reconsider my position and determine if it truly was justified. As I have tried to make sense of my experience and the experiences of others, I have kept coming back to the types of armies that are being used as the basis for positive feedback on the map. While not always the case, it seems that a significant portion of the positive feedback is established on the foundation of bonding melee.
I believe that the difference in power level between bonding melee and non-bonding melee is exacerbated by Fulcrum (if you care, see spoiler at the end for some of my thoughts on map design accommodating melee). As one specific example – it doesn’t seem fair to say that Fulcrum is balanced for melee if that opinion is based on playing Knights with Gilbert strictly because of how powerful an ability dispatch is on a map like Fulcrum. Spashing units into water is so much more viable when you can do it with a dispatch roll, and then move units onto high ground immediately after. Units like Heavies, and Grimnak particularly, are well equipped to punch through screens a player may lay through the middle of the map. As an important side note, I am NOT saying these units are easy to play on fulcrum, just that they by nature open up more possibilities than are available for other melee units – making them more viable to play on the map. From my experience and seemingly from the experiences of others, non-bonding melee just struggles too much to compete even against mid-tier ranged units due to the level three 3-hex piece, center design, and water placement (this of course depends on army composition, etc.).
Overall, I find myself disagreeing with the sentiment that Fulcrum promotes the use of diverse armies. I do agree strongly, however, with the argument that Fulcrum demands that players approach the game in a different way than they would on most other maps. It accomplishes that purpose very well, and therefore deserves continued recognition and use by the community. Yet, unfortunately, I do not believe that recognition should be in WoS.
I support the nomination to remove Fulcrum from the WoS.