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.

Daughters of Khaine Analysis

Win Rate: 57% (Rank: 3rd)
Average Elo: 462.7 (Rank: 1st)
Popularity: 308 Games (Rank 23rd)

Daughters of Khaine finish this cycle on a 57% win rate, placing them just outside the healthy 45–55% band. What immediately stands out however, is the average Elo. Sitting 1st overall, this is a faction overwhelmingly played by strong, experienced players. With relatively low popularity, Daughters are very much a “specialist army”. When they show up, they tend to be piloted well.

That context matters, because it suggests some of the faction’s success is player-driven rather than purely warscroll efficiency.

Looking down the warscroll table, there are surprisingly few true outliers.

Most commonly used units cluster tightly between 55–58%, regardless of whether they are included or excluded. This is a sign of good internal balance rather than a single oppressive build. Even the traditionally feared centrepieces, Morathi-Khaine andThe Shadow Queen, sit at 56% when included and 57% when excluded. They are powerful, but not pushing lists meaningfully outside the healthy range on their own.

Core units such as Blood Sisters, Khainite Shadowstalkers, Blood Stalkers, and Witch Aelves all sit in roughly the same band. This points to a faction that wins through synergy and execution.

The most notable points increase is the +20 to Krethusa the Croneseer. With a 55% win rate when included and 59% without her, this adjustment is difficult to justify on performance alone. Krethusa does not appear to be a unit that pushes lists beyond the healthy band, and her exclusion actually points towards better results.

This feels less like a data-driven nerf and more like GW reacting to perceived potential.

Conversely, the -10 to the Hag Queen and -10 to the Melusai Ironscale make sense. Both units sit around the healthy band and are important pieces. Small reductions here encourage list variety without increasing the faction’s ceiling, which is a sensible approach for an army already performing well in the hands of skilled players.

GW resisted the temptation to heavily tax the army’s core. There are no sweeping increases across Witch Aelves, Melusai, or Morathi herself. The data simply doesn’t support aggressive nerfs here.

Low-performing warscrolls such as Khinerai Lifetakers, Slaughter Queen on foot, and Bloodwrack Medusa continue to struggle, but sample sizes are small. Leaving them largely alone is reasonable.

Daughters of Khaine are strong, but they are strong in a healthy way. Their performance appears to be driven as much by player skill as by warscroll power, and the internal balance of the faction is relatively tight. GW’s changes are mostly light-touch, and while the Krethusa increase feels questionable, the overall approach avoids overcorrecting a faction that was only slightly out of bounds.

Daughters will remain strong in the next Battlescroll.

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.