Towers for crw, what do you think


#1


What do yall think?


#2

Much better than the last AOW at least they are fair for a change and don’t favor one color over another.

I still think they need to go back to basics. Have one tower give 40% att to all, another 40% def to all and have the last tower give the huge ap bonus to all like they did here.

I just hope none of them are going to require 2 energy to attack it. They need to never bring that back.


#3

Might want to look again ranged is for defending and melee is on attack.


#4

Im thinking there might be a mistake in there …


#5

Green attack bonus… Well Shiva and Abe teams will rule this war. Bye Lydia :joy::joy::joy:
:pensive::confounded:


#6

Really like the idea of bonus attack on defence, it’s a really interesting twist on the usual towers.

Looks like it’s a ranged defence v Melee attack war


#7

Nobody will have Lydia on defence this war, it’ll be about Erika, Michonne & Magna


#8

With that yellow attack bonus magna and mich will get smashed as well :wink: and mich is trash on def anyway… but that attack bonus is nice for her


#9

Oh no they will just go back to magna erika teams the shame…


#10

For me, it stinks that we have melee attack towers 2 wars in a row. I’m trying to figure out a melee attack team, since I’ve attacked ranged for 3 years. Would me nice if they mixed traits maybe. One ranged and one melee boosted.


#11

yeah loading up a bunch of double shots with magna and spencer/dwight lead might be way to go.


#12

Energy cost is 1 for all towers, that’s the value appearing in brackets, maybe it isn’t stated clearly enough as it is :roll_eyes:


#13

You are doing well recently @JB.Scopely . solid 7/10 community manager atm.

No, about this £36 for 12 anniversary pulls thing…


#14

The complete opposite of my teams so none of my teams will benefit from this so imo bad for me besides the last one


#15

No it wasn’t. Why would a (1) indicate how much energy it would cost to attack it. If it had said (1 energy) then it would have been clear.


#16

Yeah I usually go opposite way too. I bet that is reason for these towers being that way.


#17

Wait ? Could it be that there was a mistake … ??? :thinking::thinking:

:crazy_face::crazy_face:


#18

Hold up, so you’re saying you didn’t interpret the random “(1)” next to the tower name as energy cost? Cmon, it’s not like it’s stupidly vague or anything…


#19

While one could take an educated guess as to the meaning of the one in parentheses why should one have to make an assumption in the first place? It could have just said one energy so would be clear. Then his remark to me was nothing but him being condescending. Kinda like when he said we all wear tin foil hats on another forum.

So two can play that game because posted wrong information. Learn how to proofread because the east tower does not give 40% attack bonus when defending but instead when attacking, so there. :stuck_out_tongue:


#20

BTW his info was incorrect on the east tower.