PDA

View Full Version : Five Towers - SpaceElephant presents the Building Gameplay !



Kimundi
11-28-2013, 04:17 PM
Hello Champions,

SpaceElephant did this awesome video to present the gameplay of Towers, I'm sure you are all eager to see it ! Tell us what you think !



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq06dmSjY-0

Enclase
11-28-2013, 04:32 PM
I have screenshotted the buildings and made an article out of it for MMDoCKing - if you wanna see the revealed buildings in the details :)

http://mmdocking.com/video-the-five-towers-gameplay-and-new-buildings/

AS_UR
11-28-2013, 04:46 PM
no wonder they coming with a tutor for them :D

placing them on a creature field and giving bonuses to the creature which is placed on it seems okay theoretical.

smiths and dreamer tower seems nice and the art on that dreamer is close to op :D(took a closer look on mmdocking.com)

E: so we have to see if they come with special building removal inthe expansion,as far as i know only voidripple could handle them atm and seems like
they can get bouncedback via thrones,which leads me to another thing: i wouldn be surprised if buildings or at least the unique ones are passivley anchored?

czwartek22
11-28-2013, 04:59 PM
Nice video! Actually I'm pretty amazed about the ammount of info we've been getting about the new expansion lately, that's really cool!

No info though how to fight these pesky buildings. Can they be dispelled? Guess not (except Void Ripple probably). And what happens, when the creature in the building is moved to another location?

Serpicuz
11-28-2013, 05:05 PM
tower of the gardener is very strongh

svilleneuve
11-28-2013, 05:09 PM
Nice video! Actually I'm pretty amazed about the ammount of info we've been getting about the new expansion lately, that's really cool!

No info though how to fight these pesky buildings. Can they be dispelled? Guess not (except Void Ripple probably). And what happens, when the creature in the building is moved to another location?

The building is tied to a tile. If the creature dies, moves or gets back to your hand, the building will stay there, waiting for another creature. The uncommon building cycle has an additional drawback of getting destroyed if the creature on it gets killed from combat damage. The drawback is tailored for this cycle only and not indicative of what buildings in general will be. Aside from Void Ripple, no existing cards can remove a building. Stay tuned to the forums to see other spoilers and learn if we did create cards to destroy buildings.

czwartek22
11-28-2013, 05:15 PM
The building is tied to a tile. If the creature dies, moves or gets back to your hand, the building will stay there, waiting for another creature. The uncommon building cycle has an additional drawback of getting destroyed if the creature on it gets killed from combat damage. The drawback is tailored for this cycle only and not indicative of what buildings in general will be. Aside from Void Ripple, no existing cards can remove a building. Stay tuned to the forums to see other spoilers and learn if we did create cards to destroy buildings.

Great, that's what I thought. Thanks for the quick clarification :).

Blitz556
11-28-2013, 05:24 PM
Looks amazing! :D

Hommit
11-28-2013, 05:29 PM
Ishuma will be so OP with this tower... oh wait, it requires destiny :)
Then the one that will be OP is Ignatius ;)

Hantziie
11-28-2013, 05:31 PM
hmmm 4 destiny for the tower of the dreamer looks expensive.

Hommit
11-28-2013, 05:33 PM
And wait, they didn't merge first expansions? There was 6 icons...

Banehollow89
11-28-2013, 05:52 PM
The building is tied to a tile. If the creature dies, moves or gets back to your hand, the building will stay there, waiting for another creature. The uncommon building cycle has an additional drawback of getting destroyed if the creature on it gets killed from combat damage. The drawback is tailored for this cycle only and not indicative of what buildings in general will be. Aside from Void Ripple, no existing cards can remove a building. Stay tuned to the forums to see other spoilers and learn if we did create cards to destroy buildings.
I think that you really did a great job with these buildings, especially because you can play them when the creature is already that the tile. Some of the effects are great, looking forward to this expansion and their strategies more and more! :D

dani_trusca
11-28-2013, 06:00 PM
I have mixed feelings about this latest addition to the game. I'm sure buildings will be interesting to play with, but they resemble spells too much in terms of design space.

Let us imagine a new kind ongoing spell, one that can enchant one or more battlefield positions (so not creatures, which means they can be cast when there are no creatures in play). Creatures on/deployed on/adjacent to the enchanted position(s) gain a certain buff or debuff/give a certain bonus or trigger a certain effect (positive or negative). These would be identical to buildings in terms of effect, the only difference being that they can be dispelled, whereas buildings cannot. Presumably they've added an answer to buildings (since those that destroy themselves once the creatures is killed are not representative of buildings in general), so yet another card that requires a specific answer. I'm curious what was the thought process behind this design.

This is not a critique, it's just that I would have designed them very differently.

Baduruu
11-28-2013, 06:37 PM
Tower of the gardener and Inventor look nasty. Ishuma and Malik just got stronger. Tower of the gardener will make plague bearers cost so little.

svilleneuve
11-28-2013, 07:06 PM
I have mixed feelings about this latest addition to the game. I'm sure buildings will be interesting to play with, but they resemble spells too much in terms of design space.

Let us imagine a new kind ongoing spell, one that can enchant one or more battlefield positions. Creatures on/deployed on/adjacent to the enchanted position gain a certain buff or debuff/give a certain bonus or trigger a certain effect (positive or negative). These would be identical to buildings in terms of effect, the only difference being that they can be dispelled, whereas buildings cannot. Presumably they've added an answer to buildings (since those that destroy themselves once the creatures is killed are not representative of buildings in general), so yet another card that requires a specific answer. I'm curious what was the thought process behind this design.

This is not a critique, it's just that I would have designed them very differently.

Buildings are physical locations that affects the battleground. We wanted it to be among the creatures and not on the periphery of the battle. The most logical approach to design cards on the battleground was to make them buffs for the creatures on it. It's not the only things buildings are meant to do, but it was the logical first step.

The most obvious advantage of a building is its resilience compared to an ongoing spell. For now buildings are closer to ongoings in terms of effects too, but we could create buildings that have no link with the creature on it, or buildings that blocks the tile entirely. Bottom line is, the design space for Building cards is much wider than what Five Towers showed you so far.

And of course, we've thought of counter cards for buildings, but not in a "silver bullet" way.

Dipl0mate
11-28-2013, 07:12 PM
Actually there is already some nice counters to building. I mean all the "enchant a row" mechanics have a lot more interest now that there is building. Would it be enough, we will see ^^

Banehollow89
11-28-2013, 07:24 PM
Actually there is already some nice counters to building. I mean all the "enchant a row" mechanics have a lot more interest now that there is building. Would it be enough, we will see ^^

I agree, Gate to Nowhere definitely got more interesting, and Sanctuary outmanouevre counters them in a way.

dani_trusca
11-28-2013, 07:26 PM
Buildings are physical locations that affects the battleground. We wanted it to be among the creatures and not on the periphery of the battle. The most logical approach to design cards on the battleground was to make them buffs for the creatures on it. It's not the only things buildings are meant to do, but it was the logical first step.

The most obvious advantage of a building is its resilience compared to an ongoing spell. For now buildings are closer to ongoings in terms of effects too, but we could create buildings that have no link with the creature on it, or buildings that blocks the tile entirely. Bottom line is, the design space for Building cards is much wider than what Five Towers showed you so far.

And of course, we've thought of counter cards for buildings, but not in a "silver bullet" way.
Thanks for the reply svilleneuve. Any chance we'll see ongoing spells like the ones I suggested some day? :D

Going with your design, I would have made towers give bonus to creatures on top of them (or adjacent), but not castable directly on creatures (to give them a unique feel). You'd be able to drop a tower only on an empty battlefield position, and then move or deploy creatures over it, so you'd have to plan ahead. They seem much too powerful now (some of them at least), but we'll have to wait and see. I look forward to playing with/against them.

kkfuti
11-28-2013, 08:51 PM
I agree, Gate to Nowhere definitely got more interesting, and Sanctuary outmanouevre counters them in a way.

Ugh I didn't though about that. It makes little sense that a creature could be moved from a tower with an "outmanouevre" tactic in a real combat, I hope there is some kind of restriction for creatures in buildings.

Myrmagican
11-28-2013, 09:14 PM
But Japanese outmaneuvred Koreans from their fortresses IRL. :)

MT...
11-29-2013, 12:58 AM
So disappointed! Once again For Necro related cards the Necro player must increase magic to play this new style.

I find it ironic that the player used Fleshbane for his demo. The one Necro hero who has to increase his magic, not only to play Banshees (that I would like to see cost 613) but also and most likely any Necro related buildings. "I look forward to seeing what else is to come."

mriClipse
11-29-2013, 01:07 AM
So, we're getting more stuff to counter and even less cards to actually do so? I found ongoing spells already too reliable, since half the heroes can't even remove those yet.

Banehollow89
11-29-2013, 01:19 AM
So, we're getting more stuff to counter and even less cards to actually do so? I found ongoing spells already too reliable, since half the heroes can't even remove those yet.

I heard from other forum that there is a new neutral fortune that will have dispel like effect. Don't know how reliable the source is, since I haven't seen that card yet.


So disappointed! Once again For Necro related cards the Necro player must increase magic to play this new style.

I find it ironic that the player used Fleshbane for his demo. The one Necro hero who has to increase his magic, not only to play Banshees (that I would like to see cost 613) but also and most likely any Necro related buildings. "I look forward to seeing what else is to come."
I don't get your point? The Soul Spire is solid, but not great, and the Tower of the Gardener has 1 Magic requirement, which you will have with EVERY hero in the Necro arsenal except Fleshbane but he will put 1 in magic anyway if he wants to play any of the Incorporeal units, so I don't see what is the problem?

dani_trusca
11-29-2013, 01:23 AM
I heard from other forum that there is a new neutral fortune that will have dispel like effect. Don't know how reliable the source is, since I haven't seen that card yet.
If this is the one you're referring to, it's not exactly what I'd call "reliable":

http://mmdocking.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/card1.jpg

Banehollow89
11-29-2013, 01:29 AM
What does it do exactly?

WayneGace
11-29-2013, 01:53 AM
"Banish target ongoing spell or fortune. Deal damage to your hero equal to that card’s cost."

Banehollow89
11-29-2013, 02:42 AM
Yup, the requirements are too high. Maybe if it was 0-2-2, but going for 3 magic and 3 destiny just for the dispel is a little bit ambitious.

Haru1818
11-29-2013, 03:41 AM
hmmm how about
a) goblin shredder with war tent, after goblin attack he move it to another row what happen to the tower and if there's enemy attacker in front of the tower and nothing more in that row what enemy creature attacking?
b)same question as above but for unique building one because there's no destroy self wording

hope anybody can fill my curiosity

dani_trusca
11-29-2013, 05:30 AM
hmmm how about
a) goblin shredder with war tent, after goblin attack he move it to another row what happen to the tower and if there's enemy attacker in front of the tower and nothing more in that row what enemy creature attacking?
b)same question as above but for unique building one because there's no destroy self wording

hope anybody can fill my curiosity
I presume you're referring to the Blackskull Shredder, the creature with Quick Attack and Swift. From what I understand, buildings do not represent obstacles, so creatures can attack through them when unoccupied. You can think of them as battlefield enchantments. When moving a creature off a building, the building remains in play. In case of the War Tent and other similar buildings, they are only destroyed when the creature on the building receives combat damage. So presumably War Tents can't be destroyed even by Armageddon. :D Many things in this game don't make much sense flavor-wise. Luckily I don't really care about flavor.

Crimson84
11-29-2013, 07:58 AM
can't wait!

Pjovejas
11-29-2013, 09:50 AM
I wonder: throne of renewal would affetc those buildings? since they are still "the cards"?

elite_Husky
11-29-2013, 10:03 AM
Looks like Primary and light magic loose their monopoly to dispel due to neutral fortune. Now these spell schools need something with power of fireball, geyser

hubin23
11-29-2013, 10:31 AM
It seems that quick attach creatures will benefit from these buildings massively. So I think Stronghold might get quite a buff with this expansion.

Also, with a war tent on the board, Paos now deal 5 damage. Since they have immune to retaliation and die after the turn, you cannot get rid of those tents and the next Pao can do that again...

defunkt99
11-29-2013, 10:37 AM
the disspell fortune looks great. With this masterpiece i get an exclusive disspell for my mill and slow poke decks xD. Adding a disspell to hakeem mill or dhmira sp takes away their only weaknes.

Hommit
11-29-2013, 11:13 AM
Looks like Primary and light magic loose their monopoly to dispel due to neutral fortune. Now these spell schools need something with power of fireball, geyser
lol, as if they need anything more

It seems that quick attach creatures will benefit from these buildings massively. So I think Stronghold might get quite a buff with this expansion.

Also, with a war tent on the board, Paos now deal 5 damage. Since they have immune to retaliation and die after the turn, you cannot get rid of those tents and the next Pao can do that again...
this is... worrying :/
and we don't even know what the fifth tower is

Banehollow89
11-29-2013, 12:46 PM
this is... worrying :/
and we don't even know what the fifth tower is
Yeah, just imagine that you play with 2-3 Weeks of the Dead, and that you get 2 in your turn. You could play Pao, sacrifice, Pao, sacrifice, Pao, or even with sacrificial altar instead of Week of the Dead, and you could do 15 damage in one turn for just like 9 resources. And that is only with Paos. New kinds of OTK. I don't like this. ;D

svilleneuve
11-29-2013, 01:10 PM
Yeah, just imagine that you play with 2-3 Weeks of the Dead, and that you get 2 in your turn. You could play Pao, sacrifice, Pao, sacrifice, Pao, or even with sacrificial altar instead of Week of the Dead, and you could do 15 damage in one turn for just like 9 resources. And that is only with Paos. New kinds of OTK. I don't like this. ;D

Indeed, but if your War Tent is already in play, your opponent will know where to block.

Banehollow89
11-29-2013, 01:16 PM
Indeed, but if your War Tent is already in play, your opponent will know where to block.

And what if you played more than 1 War Tent, like 2-4 since you can play more of them? :D

svilleneuve
11-29-2013, 01:17 PM
Looks like Primary and light magic loose their monopoly to dispel due to neutral fortune. Now these spell schools need something with power of fireball, geyser

They didn't really lose it, Price of the Void has a hefty price tag on it. The card is supposed to let you get rid of any ongoing in play, but since this ability is not supposed to be neutral, it costs and requires more. A fireball type of damage in Prime doesn't belong there, it would have to be a bad card, like 3 damage for 5 resources.

DanielKurzempa
11-29-2013, 01:31 PM
They didn't really lose it, Price of the Void has a hefty price tag on it. The card is supposed to let you get rid of any ongoing in play, but since this ability is not supposed to be neutral, it costs and requires more. A fireball type of damage in Prime doesn't belong there, it would have to be a bad card, like 3 damage for 5 resources.

Do you realy want that all people play only Rush because spells will deal only 2 or 1 damage and cost 6?

svilleneuve
11-29-2013, 02:12 PM
Do you realy want that all people play only Rush because spells will deal only 2 or 1 damage and cost 6?

That's not what I meant. I was merely pointing out that Prime is not specialized in dealing damage and if we were to create a Fireball type of card in Prime, it would have to be overcosted to show it doesn't belong, you would still have access to a normal Fireball.

Pjovejas
11-29-2013, 02:36 PM
For me, this whole bussiness of the towers looks a bit too powerfull "on paper" now, when we still don't see the whole picture...

Hommit
11-29-2013, 08:15 PM
Imo, that +2 atk from tribes lesser building is way more powerful that 1 cripple from necro one. There will be HUGE whine from pao/shredders
While 2 cripple maybe too much, 1 cripple + 1hp probably not very good idea either (fleshbane...), infect we already have in other places... drain 1?

Stat1cVoiD
12-01-2013, 01:08 AM
The War Tent and Tower of the Gardener can be renamed to Pao Launch Pad 1 and 2

Elementalist.
12-01-2013, 09:36 AM
Tower of the gardener wouldn't give any benefits and war tent would be destroyed after the pao attacked.

Revalon
12-01-2013, 09:51 AM
Tower of the gardener wouldn't give any benefits and war tent would be destroyed after the pao attacked.

1) agreed, it only does if you use a Pao to kill a creature. Then, it would double the damage, so you can take out a 6hp creature. But you usually son't play such a creature in front of the tower I guess.

2) I don't think so, as Paos don't die through combat damage.

Banehollow89
12-01-2013, 01:00 PM
1) agreed, it only does if you use a Pao to kill a creature. Then, it would double the damage, so you can take out a 6hp creature. But you usually son't play such a creature in front of the tower I guess.

2) I don't think so, as Paos don't die through combat damage.

Well, but you can play both Tower and Pao in the same turn in front of that creature, since combined cost is 6, quite cheap considering what it does, instantly kills a creature with 6 or less HP, if it has more HP, it will need second turn to die, and Tower of the Gardener is left there for your next creatures.

And I agree about second point, maybe they should make it that if the units dies in any way, the War Tent is destroyed. It really does feels a bit too powerful. But we will see, I think that they will introduce soft counters against buildings for each faction, and Aza already said that one faction will be able to destroy buildings.

Stat1cVoiD
12-01-2013, 03:05 PM
Tower of the gardener wouldn't give any benefits and war tent would be destroyed after the pao attacked.

As the guy above me already stated: The Pao has to die from COMBAT DAMAGE. The only way the war tent could be destroyed, while using it with a Pao, would be if the enemy played Offensive Stance and the attacked creature either survived the attack or had retribution, resp. preemptive strike.

Tower of the Gardener on the other Hand would buff the Pao to a 6 Damage nuke against creatures and leave a sweet spot for future drops. That is pretty nice for most rush Decks.

Given that seemingly no other faction than academy will be able to destroy buildings (apart from Void Ripple), at least the Tower of the Gardener will become a must have for pretty much every Deck.
Even Crag Hack should consider to put that one point in magic, considering that he could play infect 3 Serpentflies for the rest of the game.

Revalon
12-01-2013, 03:26 PM
Well, but you can play both Tower and Pao in the same turn in front of that creature, since combined cost is 6, quite cheap considering what it does, instantly kills a creature with 6 or less HP, if it has more HP, it will need second turn to die, and Tower of the Gardener is left there for your next creatures.

True, don't know if I can find anything convincing against this, so right now, I have to agree.


Even Crag Hack should consider to put that one point in magic, considering that he could play infect 3 Serpentflies for the rest of the game.

I already said it, and here we have it again: Serpentfly is OP. Hopefully this will finally lead to the long needed nerf :D

xthatwhiteguyx
12-04-2013, 10:58 AM
So what I gather from this expansion thus far is decks that are not fun to play against get more powerful and pao deathseekers, possibly the biggest horse **** card in the game, get a significant boost in power.

I get it, Ubisoft, you don't want me to play anymore. Fine!

Revalon
12-04-2013, 11:15 AM
So what I gather from this expansion thus far is decks that are not fun to play against get more powerful and pao deathseekers, possibly the biggest horse **** card in the game, get a significant boost in power.

I get it, Ubisoft, you don't want me to play anymore. Fine!

I think you don't want to play anymore and search any reason to justify that.
You could at least wait for the spoiler stream before you cry.

Outrageous0tter
12-04-2013, 02:30 PM
I think that buildings are a very bad idea and will unbalance the game.

But yeah we'll see what happen at the release