Wargrounds of Scape (WoS) - discussion thread

[Foudzing]

Originally Posted by Shurrig

I'd like to submit a nomination for the removal of Fulcrum from the WoS.



As of yet, I do not think there has been a map that has gone up for reconsideration for the WoS. I've spoken with some of the judges from the WoS about this map and they seemed to more or less agree with my thoughts, and after playing on this map the most out of any other maps at Scapecon East I believe Fulcrum does not hold up to the standards of the modern competitive map meta.

I was one of the judges Shurrig was talking to before considering this removal nomination.
I never was a fan of Fulcrum even back in 2011 when it was more popular and if I were an active judge when the BoV--> WoS votes were made my vote would surely be a no for Fulcrum.
Gonna be honest, my opinion on this map is well-done, I don't need to play bunch of games on it again or to wait one of the rare times when it is in a tournament pool. Gonna elaborate later on my opnion on the map, but I think the general opinion of players is more important, and Fulcrum is by far the most controversial map of WoS especially amongst the newer playerbase (players who started around 2018 and later). To them it's obvious that Fulcrum doesn't provide the competitive fairness that modern maps provide.
In my opinion WoS maps should be "blind-inclusion, everyone will be happy" kinda maps, and Fulcrum is way too much of a controversial map to fall in that category, people aren't gonna complain but some are gonna be sightly annoyed for sure.
Also imo Fulcrum in the pool have way too much of an impact on army building, WoS maps should be maps that you don't even need to check the map pool, your army will be fine, and this is always more or less true for all maps, it's always a grey area, and you could argue some other WoS maps are like that too, but amongst all the WoS maps, Fulcrum is in my opinion the most driving for army building.

Here are the flaws of Fulcrum to me:
- If you have range advantage, podding on the infamous level 3 triangle is just too much of a "I don't need do think" play. You also can block the acess with any 5+ move squad allowing you a 2 turns setup, with height and a lot of free attacks. No glyphs on the map gives no compensation to the melee player making this pod often an obvious play, causing the map to often play very similar in the range v melee machup. Jungle mitigates the problem a bit but isn't near enough to me. The whole islands are often deserted in those machups as melee can't get any use of them, Also this causes the map to heavily pull right, the left side is just to place figures dedicated to go to the center.
I think this map was fine back in the day because some players playing range would try to get to the hills as fast as possible and kinda throw the game up. I myself did this mistake and got punished, but I think the average 2023 player would not fall for this mistake. To be fair Fulcrum plays great when range is trying to get to the hills, but thing is, range do not often need to claim hills on this map. It can just sit on level 3 triangle and use the natural bottleneck of the map to its advantage.
- Having all your army pass through a single hex to cross the map is way too restrictive. Maybe people play the map wrong and should do more water dunking, but I've yet to see a high-level game where water dunking was effective, having to water dunk 2 times to cross the map isn't fun either and is way too restrictive except maybe for some exceptions like Deathchasers where you can water dunk before turn 1.
- As Shurrig said, dragons kinda break the map, having to fight dragons with melee on fulcrum just feels terrible especially when screened by Greenscales, if the entrance to the hills where a bit wider I may reconsider, but we just played a game with Chris where I had to either water dunk or go through a single hex to get to Nilf on an island and when you finaly get here, he justs switch hill lol, it just feels unfair. (I still won the game tho because my Q9 was sitting on the level 3 triangle), but it was crazy that my 4 squads of dwarves almost didn't get any damage done, not because they were rolling bad, but because they couldn't get any attacks off.
As opposed to what people may think this isn't that huge of a drawback to me beause problematic dragons are like 5/387 units (VC included) and other fly/simily-fly ranged figures are okay (you can argue airborne when playing full melee), but still is a problem to me especially in high-tiers formats.

I still think Fulcrum can be awesome in some machups and provide a very original experience and be completely fine in a well thought map pool or in a well thought format where its flaws are mitigated but in my opinion this quote from Shurrig sums it up very well:

Originally Posted by Shurrig

However, time and time again this map has only further shown that its flaws competitively far outweigh its novelty in uniqueness and design.

To me Fulcrum does not provide the competitive fairness and the "guaranteed fun floor" required for a spot in the WoS, it's not like a bad map but it has too many flaws that can be abused and is way too controversial in the community.I vote no to include Fulcrum in the WoS.

[dok]

If you go back and look over my many reviews at this point, you will see the recurring theme that I value maps that give unique experiences. While the many outstanding maps that have been added to the WoS list over the last couple years require a wide variety of approaches in order to win games, there’s no question that the pool of competitive tournament maps has grown to feel more homogenous. Fulcrum’s layout takes a wildly different approach from what we’re accustomed to, and as a result games on Fulcrum play out pretty differently than games on any other map.

To me, though, the biggest and most salient knock on Fulcrum is that games on Fulcrum tend to play out pretty similarly to other games on Fulcrum. You see a lot of “army with range advantage shifts right; army with range disadvantage assaults the position”. This is certainly not every game on Fulcrum, but it’s a fair number of them.

Broadly speaking, I think the map is pretty fair, even in that matchup. I’ve won plenty of games assaulting the right corner turtle, and I’ve seen others do it plenty as well. And as stated above and by others, I really enjoy how this map encourages some tactics and play patterns you rarely see on other maps.

Are there specific things I don’t like about the map? Sure. The big one that sticks out to me is that the level 3 sub-hill on the right has two jungle-protected spaces. This is just an unnecessary boost to the strongest defensive position on the map. I also feel like the left side could use its own level 3 sub hill; as it stands the left side level 2 space before the water ends up being a bit of an empty quarter of the map, only used occasionally for transit, or in the odd match against ranged flyers.

All of this is to say that I wouldn’t mind seeing a modestly updated version of Fulcrum in the WoS. One of the main ideas of this project is to be a living list where maps can leave and arrive and change. But in much the same way that I value diversity in sets used, I value diversity in map shape, style, and tactical approach. IMO the overall WoS is still stronger with Fulcrum than it is without it. YES to retain Fulcrum.

[1Mmirg]

I may not have played as many games as dok on Fulcrum, but I have played many, many games on it. It can be a hard map, but I have consistently found it fair across many competitive armies. I love the use of cover and jungle, as well as water. I'm not a big fan of the height proximate to the start zone, but the walls help limit this position (I wish both sides could have the small ruin).

While I recognize that Fulcrum doesn't fit in well with many current maps and map-making approaches, I believe it still does what it does well--encouraging players to prepare for a diversity of possible maps and forcing players to try different playstyles than they may be used to.

Fulcrum won't be everyone's favorite map, in every tourney, but it continues to feel relevant and meaningful.

Like dok, I wouldn't mind some small modifications to it, but I think it retains its value in the WoS. I vote YES to keep it in the WoS.

--

While I am here, I'll also vote in favor of the changes to Origin. These are smart choices that help the map play better.

Origin remains a map that is on the edge of my comfort zone. It is a bit too rough on melee units (and really frustrates 4 move units!), but I think it is the best of the best for a single RotV and good enough to be used in any tourney's map pool. I think it is valuable for the WoS to have maps like this that do as much as it does, as well as it does, with only a single set.

I vote YES to the new Origin.

[Matthias Maccabeus]

I've played more games on Fulcrum than probably anybody with the exception of maybe dok (or Dignan). I have slaughtered range with melee countless times in tournaments and continue to do so on Fulcrum (just played it a local in Jan). I see no reason for it to be dismissed from the WoS.

I vote NO to remove Fulcrum.

[superfrog]

Only Matthias could find a way to vote yes using the word no.

[Matthias Maccabeus]

Originally Posted by superfrog

Only Matthias could find a way to vote yes using the word no.

Just trying to be consistent with my votes...

[OEAO]

Fulcrum by Dignan


I really don't have too much to add beyond what's already been said. I've never had major issues playing melee into range on this map. I don't mind the jungle protecting the 3-hex: if you're playing against range, the other side will be shooting down at you; if you're playing against melee, the jungle bonus doesn't matter.

I think a handful of tweaks (I have 2-3 in mind) could improve this map. For example, pivoting the jungle bush so it's behind the 3-hex would make it ever so slightly easier for melee to attack a figure on the back right space of the 3-hex. It's a small change, but one that I think would improve the map overall.

However, I don't think this is a map that needs an update. Just about every map could be improved with an update, and that isn't dispositive when judging a map. Fulcrum provides a balanced and unique experience, and I'd hate to see it removed from WoS (especially given that I don't think it's a bottom 5 WoS map). NO to remove.

[Matthias Maccabeus]

With all the Fulcrum discussion going on, I'm nominating Dark Fulcrum. Maybe it'll be my first yes vote...



Download:
https://www.heroscapers.com/communit...o=file&id=5308

Image:
https://www.heroscapers.com/download...lcrum1_MRD.jpg

It's been used like 8945 times. Here are some:

Tournaments:

Peoria 2023 Monthlys
https://heroscape.org/tournament/?Tournament=69
https://heroscape.org/tournament/?Tournament=91

Missouri Summer Seasonal
https://heroscape.org/tournament/?Tournament=115

MARS D.C. Reverse the Whip
https://heroscape.org/tournament/?Tournament=122

ScapeCon III
https://heroscape.org/convention/?Convention=1

Utah 2023 | September
https://heroscape.org/tournament/?Tournament=144

[superfrog]

2 BftU is a lot for a single map…

[Sir Heroscape]

Originally Posted by superfrog

2 BftU is a lot for a single map…

I do believe there were some downvotes previously per this point

[Matthias Maccabeus]

Originally Posted by superfrog

2 BftU is a lot for a single map…

Good thing nobody voted one of those in…

[Leaf_It]

Originally Posted by superfrog

2 BftU is a lot for a single map…

Wyrmwalk, Bad Moon Rising, Stygian Rift, and your very own Canary all use 2 BFTU. All of those maps have been accepted by the WoS. I feel this is a bad criticism.