About This Series

With the release of the latest Battlescroll, Games Workshop have once again adjusted points across multiple factions in an effort to keep Age of Sigmar balanced and competitive. As always, these changes have sparked plenty of discussion, with more than a little debate.

This article is part of a wider Woehammer series examining those points changes through a data-led view. Each faction is analysed using real tournament results to assess whether Games Workshop’s adjustments align with how armies and warscrolls are actually performing on the table.

Our full thoughts on methodology and where it differs to Games Workshop are explained after our faction analysis.

Helsmiths of Hashut Analysis

Win Rate: 41% (Rank: 25th)
Average Elo: 398.7 (Rank: 25th)
Popularity: 179 Games (Rank: 25th)

At face value, Helsmiths of Hashut are the weakest performing faction in the game. However, unlike most armies at the bottom of the rankings, context matters more here than almost anywhere else.

This is a brand-new faction, released only in the last couple of months. Many players are still assembling and painting models, which naturally means they don’t feature as much yet and skews the sample toward early adopters and hobby-first players rather than hardened tournament grinders.

Not only are Helsmiths new, with Daemonic Power Points (DPP), they are not simple to play. DPP adds another layer of management to the game for Helsmiths players that can be hard to track and remember for newer players.

That matters because the early data can be affected by players learning the faction at events and suboptimal builds being tested on the fly.

Whats notable though is that no one warscroll appears to be pushing the win rate up. There’s nothing that allows the players a little forgiveness when playing which explains the early results.

But it does perhaps suggest that given time and experience the faction may begin to pay off for players who persist with them.

GWs points reductions are in line with these thoughts. They are reluctant (understandably) to make any massive changes to the faction in its infancy and would perhaps like to see what the results say once more players pick them up.

I expect we’ll see Helsmiths improve to just within the healthy band.

How Games Workshop Use Their Data

Games Workshop have previously stated that their balance decisions are informed by results from the last 60 days of events, primarily drawn from Best Coast Pairings. This dataset includes both one and two day events.

This approach gives GW a very broad view of the game, capturing everything from highly competitive play to more casual, experimental lists. From an accessibility and participation standpoint this does makes sense. It reflects how the majority of players experience the game.

How Woehammer Uses Its Data

For this series, Woehammer takes a narrower approach.

Our analysis is based exclusively on two-day events (typically five-round tournaments), drawn from multiple platforms, including:

• Best Coast Pairings
• Milarki
• Ecksen
• Mini Head Quarters
• Longshanks
• Tabletop Herald
• Championshub.app

These events are competitions where lists are refined, and player skill is more consistent across the field.

Why Focus on GT Data?

One day events and casual tournaments introduce significant variance when used for balance decisions:

• Fewer rounds mean higher randomness
• Greater spread in player skill
• More thematic or experimental lists
• Less pressure to optimise for the meta

Two-day events, by contrast, are where balance issues reliably surface. Strong warscrolls and strong combinations tend to rise quickly, while weaker options are filtered. If a unit or build is genuinely pushing an army beyond a healthy win rate, it will almost always show up here first.

For that reason, Woehammer prioritises signal over volume. The dataset is smaller, but the conclusions are clearer.

How to Read These Articles

Each faction articles follows the same structure:

• Overall faction performance (win rate, average Elo, Popularity)
• Warscroll performance when included vs excluded
• A review of the points changes and whether they’re supported by our data
• Pointing out any changes that appear questionable or which we think may be missing.

Throughout the series, we use a 45–55% win-rate band as a reference point for healthy balance. Units or factions consistently operating outside this range are flagged as potential problems in either direction.

Final Note

This analysis isn’t intended to dismiss the value of casual play. Instead, it offers a view on how the game may behave being pushed in its competitive format.

Games Workshop looks wide, aiming to satisfy all players in the hobby, whether thats with pick-up games, or at competitive events.

Woehammer looks deeper at the competitive side, believing that balance for casual play can fall from balancing the game for competitive play.