I like figures that represent the character. If a character was an aggressive attacker, then they should have a high attack.

Defense it is. It seems like a lot of pieces out there can do damage. Not that many have great survivability. A good defense always beat a good offense, of course if you have a decent amount of damage output haha. Balance is really key.

Defense is probably better because if you can stay alive longer and pick up gambit points it should better your chances at victory where as attack all depends on damage output so a great attack can be limited by how much damage it does. Of course a good balance of both is best but if I had to pick one I would have to go with defense.

There's nothing quite like running a 23-defence Vader up the pitch.

High attack and low defence ---> a fast game (you will laugh when the attacks miss because it is not offen, or just perhaps you roll a 1)

High defence and low attack ---> a VERY long game (you will cry when the attacks miss because you will see a lot in one game, and you will really hope to roll a 20)

I perfer to play few games in an hour, instead of just one boring game.

Therefore, "ATTACK".

Beside high defence means nothing when there are force push (+mobile attack), force repulse, self-destruct 40, missile, etc.

A Huge attack is great. In this day and age where everyone gains oppurtunist, or cunning, and with combined fire , even a character with 28 def is hittable. Plus with many teams able to benefit from evade, a character can have low hit points and still live. The Sith are an example of how high defense and even hit points do not necessarily make for a tough squad, but that could be because they are costed so high that other supporting cost characters can't be afforded.

Attack in most situations. Obviously the context would matter, but generally extra attack means more damage, removing my opponent's pieces faster, and indirectly keeping mine alive longer as I eliminate the opposing threats.

Attack in this case. I feel that the best D is a good offense. I like to make sure that I can have a better chance of hitting my opponent and possibly killing them vs stacking my defense and hoping he doesn't come after me

It's pretty much 6 of one half, half dozen of the other. Your either making it easier to hit with a figure and thus more efficient at killing the enemy, or harder to hit and more likely to survive the battle. So it really depends on the circumstances of the battles being fought, and the situation in which that gain or loss would happen. On a figure with a 20+ defense, in which a lot of characters already need significant bonuses or a critical to hit anyway, adding defense isn't going to do much. And on a figure with an already high attack that will hit most anything on a 2+, adding attack isn't going to help.

One big difference as well is whether you intend on trying to speed up or draw out the game. Adding to attack will make it more likely to kill an opponent faster, but won't necessarily help a figure live. Thus a faster overall kill. Whereas adding to defense, thus making it harder to kill, will make it take longer for an opponent to defeat that piece and make the game a bit longer and drawn out.

Spell check and grammar would be much appreciated lol...sheesh.






Honestly stats dont drive this game as much as CEs, SAs, and FPs do. just look at the squads thst probably do well regardless like Levitating NR, Rebels, etc having Leia and Rieekan is far more powerful than if all the minis had +4 attack or defense.

Overall I love pieces that defend better. I enjoy high defense squads like Barris/Luminara/GMY.