New Poll: The Most Important Stat in 40k

A new poll is up on the site asking you what you think the most important stat in 40k is.  Granted, all stats are valid, but not every stat was created equally. 

I fully expect that answers to this poll will vary depending upon whether people play heavy shooting armies, or assault armies, but that’s part of the fun.  Since it might be hard for someone to pick just one answer, you’re allowed to pick up to three responses. 

Polls aren’t a new thing on the site, it’s just something I haven’t really advertised in the past.  In the upcoming weeks, I plan on taking a look at the results from this poll, as well as the previous year, to see what people are thinking.

You can vote on this poll to the right, or using the form below:

[poll id=”22″]


21 comments on “New Poll: The Most Important Stat in 40k

    • I’m sort of approaching this from a more global perspective. I’m sure those players that focus on a gunline army are more prone to choose BS as an important statistic, while those with a more assaulty force might choose WS or attacks. I wonder if they’ll balance out?

      But when I voted myself (is it cheating to vote on your own polls?), I chose the stats I felt were the most important across the board–regardless of which army you’re playing.

  1. Do you want us to put explanations of voting in? That could skew results by influencing others.

    Also, Bi-Weekly Poll could be shortened to Bi-Poll? 😉

    Makes the contributors Bi-Pollers…

  2. Now you’ve set me thinking about the least important stat. For me, leadership is underused, and toughness, wounds and save seem hazily defined, not least in terms of how they match up with vehicle armour and damage tables. That’s not even mentioning the USRs. The game’s been through so many editions I’d say it needs the dead wood cutting back in some areas and new growth encouraged.

  3. I put Toughness as top. Especially in interaction with the most common model and weapon Strengths (3-5), the difference between T3 and T4, or T5 is pretty significant. My other two votes went to Wounds and Saves, as those three combine to make each other even more powerful.

  4. My votes:
    Toughness : Resistance to damage is applicable in all 3 phases – it determines the places a unit moves to – towards or away from the enemy, in and out of cover/building/transports etc. It determines what can be allowed to shoot them with impunity…and it determines the ability to tarpit or grind a win out of combats.

    Save : Determines a unit’s basic resistance to damage in addition to T (and of course W.) While a lot of people claim the ubiquitousness of cover in 5e as some sort of reason why Save is irrelevant, IMO this is a red herring. Firstly, Cover is not so prevalent as many claim. Indeed, the recommended table coverage of terrain hasn’t really changed since 2e. Use of TLoS to determine of terrain blocks a shot isn’t new either – the only new thing is the ability to claim cover for being shot ‘through’ a unit. While the default cover Save being 4+, people also claim that even a 3+ isn’t important – but it is, when facing mediocre or weak a-i firepower, such as Lasguns. The difference between a 4+ and a 3+ when shot by 7 Lasguns is significant, very much so. The difference between this and a 2+ even more extreme. Save allows you to determine what kind of situations a model can be placed in in order to gain maximum usage with minimum risk. If it WASN’T so important to have a good Sv, then TH/SS with their bog standard other stats and low mobility would be overlooked in almost all corners of the Blogosphere/Forums.

    Ballistic Skill: This determines ability to reach out from across the table and start doing damage. WS is all very well and good, but Shooting > Melee, because it carries virtually no risk, and can be done for all of your turns, as opposed to melee, which typically requires at least 2/3 turns to instigate – more if facing a mobile and skilled opponent – at least, if you don’t go into unfavourable combat situations. Having a med or high BS offsets this, as you are able to play to your own strengths rather than play to the enemy’s weaknesses as melee requires. Someone will always be able to beat you in either player’s Assault Phase – within your own Shooting Phase you cannot be beaten except by dice.

    Of course, in the Movement Phase this variable is all but removed, hopefully explaining why it is the single most important phase.

    Damn, this is so long it’s almost a skimpy article!

    I failed to address BS vs WS properly, IMO, and don’t know how to shoehorn this in:
    WS is inferior because it is conditional. WS is dependant upon the enemy being inferior to you in order to get a better than 50% hit rate, peaking at a 3+, meaning even the most Elite of troops are only as good against Gretchin as Space Marines when it comes to the ‘trading blows’ part.

    BS is based upon a table that is based entirely upon your OWN ability, and is therefore not conditional (in the same sense.) This makes it much more reliable and, ironically (or not) accurate.

    By knowing the BS of my units, I know, for certain, how good they are in the field of damaging the foe. With WS, this can never be the case until WS10…and if something has 10 in a stat you already know it is the maximum, so wise up! lol

    …Yep, article. :p

    • Oh, I also forgot a piece about the proliferation of High AP weaponry (cf, Razorspam) because of the two-fold benefit of ignoring ALL armour saves, not just the ones listed, as all are equal or inferior to the expressed value, and because of the FnP-ignoring benefits too.

      The ability to spread FnP relatively easily now (BA, Tervigon) increases the overall value of these weapons, which proves their continued advantages versus opponent units, most specifically pseudo-Deathstar units (see Incubi) that tend not to have an Invulnerable Save.

      Think that covers it well enough.

    • Hey King, I’m not sure how I missed this reply, so sorry about my delayed reaction. I agree whole-heartedly on the first two, but BS is something I didn’t expect to see top this list. You’ve a well-defended argument though, so while I still don’t agree, I respect your opinion. Typically, I figure the opposite: Melee > Assault, because it also lets me kill your units during your own turn, but it does come with a downside I rarely consider.

      Thanks for taking the time to write the response—er… I mean article. 🙂 Sorry it took me so long to catch it.

  5. For me it’s Leadership or having the ability to ignore its effects (i.e. Fearless, Stubborn).

    Is there any other stat where in a single roll you can lose a whole unit, weather its fleeing from Shooting or getting run down by a sweeping assault.

    Although it you look at the so called often mentioned meta game you could arguably say that its AV

  6. For me it’s Toughness first: you use it so much (sadly!) – You’re either ‘keeping up’ (4), ‘puny’ (3) or ‘really hard’ (5).

    Next is Wounds. There are instant death weapons out there, but basically, the more wounds you’ve got in your army, the longer you can keep going.

    Lastly, I picked initiative. This might be skewed by me mostly playing orks, but close combat is important to all armies. Killing your opponents before they can hit you (whoever charged) is really handy. If you kill your opponent you don’t need to worry about their stats or wargear any more, nor do you need to worry about your lack of stats or wargear.

Have something to add?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.