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.

Nighthaunt Analysis

Win Rate: 57% (Rank: 1st)
Average Elo: 431.9 (Rank: 18th)
Popularity: 409 Games (Rank: 19th)

Nighthaunt close out this Battlescroll cycle as the clear top performers, finishing on a 57% win rate according to our stats. That result is driven largely by the much maligned Pyreghesist, supported by the Krulghast Cruciator and Lady Olynder combination. Unsurprisingly, this is exactly where Games Workshop chose to intervene.

The +20 to Pyregheists was entirely expected and, frankly, unavoidable. The same applies to the +20 applied to Lady Olynder and the +10 to the Krulghast Cruciator. Together, these changes add roughly 120-160 points to the most abusive Nighthaunt builds, which should meaningfully reduce their dominance without gutting the faction entirely. Our data would support these changes.

Edit (18/12/25): I forgot to mention that GW also changed the Pyregheist ability to once per army. This would have immediately stopped the spam lists on its own, without the need for the points decrease.  Applying both feels a little heavy handed.

The decision to increase the Black Coach by +10 points is harder to justify. Lists that include the Black Coach sit at a 54% win rate, which places them just inside the healthy 45–55% balance band. In contrast, Nighthaunt lists without the Black Coach jump to a 61% win rate. In other words, taking the Black Coach appears to restrain the faction rather than push it over the top. This is one of the rare cases where a points increase risks nudging Nighthaunt further away from balance rather than towards it.

There are also several points reductions aimed at encouraging wider unit diversity, which is broadly sensible. However, not all of the increases feel necessary. I would not personally have raised the points on either Craventhrone Guard or Chainrasps at this stage. Both units appear broadly balanced, and it would have been reasonable to wait and assess the effects of the Pyregheist, Olynder and Cruciator increases before acting further.

One alternative approach GW could have taken would have been a small points reduction of 5–10 points for Bladegheist Revenants. With a 51% win rate when included, they sit firmly in the healthy range, yet lists that exclude them spike to a 61% win rate. Bladegheists appear to act as a soft limiter on more abusive builds, and incentivising their inclusion may have achieved balance through internal variety rather than further tax increases.

Overall, these changes should be enough to bring Nighthaunt back into the desired 45–55% win-rate range. While not every adjustment is fully supported by the data, the core offenders have been addressed, and the faction’s dominance should now be significantly reduced.

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.