Which is the most valuable stat?

[EmperorEternalXIX]

Alright. Every army in the game has different meta-game considerations as to its role and how its list is constructed, and chief among these is the base statline of a model. But sometimes it seems like the GW staffers who write our codex releases have some odd consistency.

I am just curious. Which stats do you think are the most valuable for a model? Which ones do you think we pay too much for/not enough for in points costs?

For my input I have to say that Saves are the weakest. I pay 16 points a marine in the SM dex and this is largely due to the fact of them having a 3+ save, but meta-game wise, almost any weapon upgrade that isn't a flamer or heavy bolter equivalent will negate that save even though it is so allegedly powerful.

[Inquisitor Lord Haestus]

My favorite stat is the paintjob!! It doesn't matter if it wins or loses, as long as it looks good :-)

Seriously after that, it depends if it is a close combat/assault unit or a shooty/long range unit.

[j-orge-287]

I agree that saves are the weakest because they are more often than not fixed-you can't change the armour sometimes. I prefer the armour system in WFB where for some models you pick your armour and it gets modified by high strength hits etc.

The most valuable stats I think are: BS,WS and I. I think ballistic/weapon skill because if you hit an enemy then it goes without saying they are more likely to die eg: IG veterans with lasguns are more likely to kill my regular opponents space marines because they more often than not hit. I chose initiative because you obviously can't kill your enemy if he has already killed you

[EmperorEternalXIX]

For clarification's sake, I meant this thread in regards to points paid. I.e. is a model really worth that much more because it has a 2+ save versus say a 3+?

[Abominable Plague Marine]

Then you might want to rename your topic?

You want us to discuss a models stats in relation to its points cost? Well clearly you pay for what you get..............

[DoctorEvil]

Then you might want to rename your topic?

You want us to discuss a models stats in relation to its points cost? Well clearly you pay for what you get..............

Obviously point cost is then themost important stat. Seriously, is there any stat more important in determing whether a unit/model is good or bad, other than point cost?

[Wolfshade]

I think possibly toughness, most people I play chaos run with a some nurgle marines just for the +1 toughness and it really does make a big difference, your normal anti-infantry guns are now looking not so effective, you are getting to the point where the light anti-tank guns have to start being used against them, just to get a decent number of wounds and that is before the armour. Then as you increase the thoughness so you decrease the aility to instant death them. This is used in nearly every phase where you take casualties (i can only think of one of the assassin weapons that use leadership instead of toughness to calculate wounds). So that's my thought, plus its common place to get weapons that ignore armour, but very few ignore toughness. so yeah :cool:

[Rangerrob]

Toughness.

Nurgle Marines, Wraithlords, etc... Hard to overcome the High toughness crowd.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Leadership...
We don't think on it as much, because we see so many fearless/ldrshp 10 units.

But play something with low leadership and/or someone that REALLY takes advantage of it(or manipulates it well)? you lose....
If it weren't for the lack of supporting elements/weakness of unmounted models, culexis assassins and pariah would be ungawdly!
PBS's are sick BECAUSE they 'create' low leadership (leading to a MESS of tactics), and stubborn makes meh-independant SM characters become focal. (though I prefer combat tactics personally).

Also, it's one of those stats that are SORT of independent of the rest of the armies cost/support. Doesn't matter how good a unit is, if it breaks all the time it's not worth it's cost/output ratio. If it just doesn't break no matter what (or controls how/when it breaks and violates other fleeing detriments) it shoots up in value despite that ratio not being wholly favorable otherwise.

[Xas]

I think the most important statlines are T and to a lesser degree saves.
toughness is really what it is all about because every point is usefull (well going from 6 to 7 isnt THAT usefull but still it at least affects plasma, pfists and exploding vehicles ^^) where most other stats can be partially made useless (saves by low ap, ws & i by beeing shot down, bs by beeing out of range/sight,...).


depending on your toughness level there are 3 types of saves you are looking into:

3-4: cover saves. because they don't "cost" anything and not even power armor would help you from getting mauled by bolter-EQ you want to attain savety by range, redudancy, numbers and thereby generated offensive power.

4-5: armor saves. because your toughness helps to lessen the strain on saves you can "invest" the points into a good armor save so every modell counts and is hard to get rid of but still not worth to be targeted by heavy firepower:

6+: invulnerability save. your high toughness means that low-strenght-high-ap weapons are allmost useless and you are the prime target for anti-tank guns (which usually are high strenght, low ap and would therefore negate armor anyways). a good armor save can help against hybrid weapons such as scatterlasers, autocannons and krak missiles but I'd rather have a 4+ invul than a 2+ armor on a t6+ creature.

examples of well saved modells:
greater deamon of tzeentch (t6, 3+ invul), plague marines (t5, 2+* armor, *including FNP), orkboyz (t4, 6+ armor, cheap),

examples of stupid saved modells:
wraithlord (t8, 3+ armor; if it were at least 2+ it would affect battlecanons and kraks but so it only help against heavy bolters and autocanons.), ogryns (t5, 5+ armor), sisters of battle (t3, 3+ save; the modell-deal itself is good but the combination of t3 and 3+ is still bad).

[gilbert93dt]

Most Important stat for infantry is BS and T. The difference between BS 3 and 4 is such a big difference. As a Tau, Ork, and Tyranid player, I am used to playing with really bad BS (BS 2 and 3). I feel like I cannot rely on long range troops because they instantly have a 50% chance of completely missing. Take a lascannon IG squad shooting an AV 12 tank. Half are gonna miss w/o a chance to try to penetrate. Now take a havoc squad w/ lascannons. 2/3 are going to hit, but it feel like more. Maybe it is just me, but I tend to feel 150% more confident is a 3+ roll than a 4+ roll. Even if you have a good gun, plasma rifle, if your BS is bad the guns potential is not reached.

Also, Attacks is very important.

We have already gone over toughness.

I also wanna say that WS is probably the worst. I pay premier points for genestealers and their WS value of 6. Space Marines have a WS value of 4. That is a good value for an all around infantry, but my WS 6 genestealers are elite hand to hand infantry. But, these Space Marines only need a 4+ to hit me. My WS of 6 needs a 3+ to hit a decent WS of 4. Take the Avatar, WS 10. He hits a Tau firewarrior at WS 2. At WS 10, the Avatar is the most skilled fighter in the game. Yet, with his massive wailing doom against not very agile FW, he needs a 3+ to hit them

[Wolfshade]

I see what you mean about WS, you tool up your army to be really all assaulty and then your opponent counters it with a huge gun line sitting as far away from your troops as possible and all that tooled up high WS has left you with targets