What is better to have?

[$$un]

What is better to have? Big Attack, Big Defence, Long Range, Far Move, or all around?
(This means if you pick Big attack, it would be like, 10, and the rest would be 3.)

[Gomolka]

It's good to have an all-around strong team, but that doesn't necessarily mean focusing on having a heavy hitter, steel wall, sniper and flying unit all in the same army.

One of the most important things to have is an army that will pull off multiple attacks per turn. Maximizing the amount of attacks per turn greatly increases your chances of inflicting wounds, regardless of how much attack you have, or how much defense your opponent has. Squad units, especially those with bonding/common squads are those that are able to perform multiple attacks per turn. This is why units such as the Knights of Weston, who get 5 attacks per turn with a Human Champion, or everyone's favorite ranged squad, the 4th Massachusetts, who get 4 ranged attacks per turn, are amongst the highest ranked and most powerful units in the game.

As for range, it's always good to have range in your army. In some cases, it's almost absolutely necessary. Along with your melee units or melee squads with bonding, having ranged support can get you out of sticky situations, or change where your opponent wants to position his units. As I mentioned before, the best ranged squads are those with 4 attacks per turn, which are the 4th Massachusetts and 10th Regiment. Having ranged power is crucial in a game, since ranged units simply dominate the field with all of the advantages they possess of having ranged attack. In any army I play, I always have some ranged support.

Mobility is another aspect that you want to incorporate in your army, but sometimes you just can't. Most mobility bonuses come from being on road, or support units. It's not worth it to go out of your way to draft a unit with high movement for whatever reason. It's always best to see if you can enhance the movement of your units with other available units. Examples of these units are Sir Gilbert or Marcus Decimus Gallus, which are both excellent options if you're using common squads that bond with them.

All-in-all, it's better to have more offensive support than defensive, in my opinion. The more attacks you have and the higher your attack, the more chances your opponent has of being hit. Remember, there are 3 skulls on a dice, and 2 shields, so offense always has an advantage in the game. By attacking more, that advantage is furthered.

[spiteofthedice]

It also depends on 1) Who you're facing, and 2) What your terrain looks like.
You want to be able to capitalize on whatever strengths you include in your army. In other words, if your opponent has a lot of heroes in his army, I would take Sujoah. If your opponent is playing an army of Ashigaru Yari, I would take . . . not Sujoah. You have to select strengths that will be realized and even magnified by the major factors of the battle.

[Onacara]

None of it matters if you do not know how to use it.

(This goes true for things in life as well)

[zanter]

As allways, Map, Map, Map.

~Z~

[Snoop Greyjoy]

I definately construct all-around teams that contain diverse elements that have flexibility to handle different maps and opponents..

However, if Im in a competitive draft situation I look for long range first, then build around that. I dont know if that is really the best thing to do necessarily, but it's worked out pretty well for me so far.

[temp.nerd]

All around!

[Ugly-Caco]

I would have voted for all around but it got me thinking; wouldn't it be cool to be or to have a superstar figure where "all around" figures are there to just support? I voted big attack. Game won't be boring!

Oh yeah, it wasn't clear in the poll if it was for a type of team. I figured Id get a rockstar (10 attack, single space) figure and some all around roadies for a team.

------
Move 3? Not a problem, draft Saylind.

[ParaGoomba Slayer]

It depends on what my opponent is drafting.

[champrjk]

I'd say it depends on the terrain.

[MI_Tiger]

If I had to pick 1 stat to be high (10 was your example), I'd pick Defense. No matter how high an attack you have, that figure will fall to concentrated fire quickly if their defense is low. You may kill an enemy with every attack, but you'll only get 1-2 attacks before dying. With an outrageous defense and low attack, I may only kill an enemy every other turn, but I should last long enough to do some real damage (until the inevitable Deathwalker roll comes along).

But my real preference would be multiple attacks, like Gomalka stated.

[MattWolf99]

Originally Posted by spiteofthedice

It also depends on 1) Who you're facing, and 2) What your terrain looks like.
You want to be able to capitalize on whatever strengths you include in your army. In other words, if your opponent has a lot of heroes in his army, I would take Sujoah. If your opponent is playing an army of Ashigaru Yari, I would take . . . not Sujoah. You have to select strengths that will be realized and even magnified by the major factors of the battle.

I totally agree, and I would add that when building an army, build it and think about using it to play an all around great army. Don't think about just the obvious (i.e the Nagrubs and Tor-Ku-Nal), think about real army strategy. I'm probably just preaching to the choir, but there are some new players out there, newer than me!