This board speaks more to the need to playtest extensively, as I think it's a fantastic idea, 273 of the design decisions are correct, and it was playtested with many versions, but with 1 or 2 things not set correctly causes a substantial reduction in fun. I don't agree that the super aggressive strategy works every time, as I've played a game where that was countered effectively (though I'd say it's still a >50% likelyhood for a 1st player win in that scenario). My issue lies in the high potential for stalemate if the board "fills in", and the inability to break out of it.
After playing in a tournament on this board, it turned out pretty quickly that player 1 has a serious advantage if they approach player 2 aggressively enough. If player 1 doesn't, this board can quickly turn into a slow, numbing slog.
This board is, unfortunately, a classic case of a good idea on paper that just didn't quite pan out. It happens.
A wonderful idea, but a bit awkward mechanically. I don't like the way unlimited fortifies drives decisions. I'm also not sure that tweaking the modifiers or rules would help that much. I suspect this type of design would benefit if it could be implemented with some designer features that I hope are in the pipeline here at WarGear.
At this writing early indications are that it is reasonably fair to seats 1 and 2, but I'll bet that there's a strong opening sequence that gives seat 1 more than a marginal advantage.
As always, a sound effort by nygmatic.