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.

Lumineth Realm-lords Analysis

Win Rate: 55% (Rank: 5th)
Average Elo: 454.5 (Rank: 4th)
Popularity: 477 Games (Rank 17th)

Lumineth finish this cycle right on the upper edge of the healthy band at 55%. They are not running away with events, but they are consistently strong and piloted by above-average players.

A handful of warscrolls push Lumineth above the 55% ceiling when included; Ellania and Ellathor (59% with, 49% without), Alarith Stoneguard (59% with, 54% without). GW’s points increases are justified in these cases. Though this should have been extended to Sevireth as well (60% with, 51% without). Is 10 points enough? Possibly not.

Again we’re seeing points deductions on units which don’t see too much play, specifically Hurakan Windchargers and the Vanari Lord Regent. While points reductions for both Scinari Calligrave will be welcome, the extremely poor win rate suggests there’s a fundamental flaw with this warscroll.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen points increased on the Bladelords, Scinari Enlightener which both have meaningful sample sizes and prove effective in the lists they are included in. Seeing a 10 point rise on both of these could have been prudent.

Expect to see Lumineth within the top 6 factions in the next couple of months.

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.