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.

Fyreslayers Analysis

Win Rate: 54% (Rank: 6th)
Average Elo: 462.6 (Rank: 2nd)
Popularity: 484 Games (Rank 16th)

Fyreslayers sit at 54%, which keeps them inside the healthy 45–55% band, but they do so while being piloted by an elite player base. With the second-highest average Elo in the dataset, this faction rewards experience and reps. Fyreslayers aren’t dominating the field, but they are strong in the right hands.

With these point adjustments I think GW are trying to stop the best Fyreslayers lists from creeping upwards.

The clearest target is the Auric Runesmiter on Magmadroth who has had its points increased by 20. During this last battlescroll it had a 56% win rate over 238 games, and lists without is were worse off at 52%. This meant it was pushing lists towards the top end of the healthy band, +20 here feels justifiable.

The Auric Runeson with +10 is defensible. This isn’t due to raw win rate but rather an efficiency tax on a support unit. It’s not outrageous, but neither is it strongly demanded by the numbers.

You may be wondering why the Vulkite Berzerkers with Fyresteel Weapons didn’t cop a points hike? At first glance, 57% looks like a prime candidate for it. But GW will be looking a context, not just the stats. They likely left them alone because the swing between with and without win rates is 4%. GW appear to leave points increases for units pushing 60%+ or units that stack with other offenders to break lists. Vulkite Berzerkers with Fyresteel Weapons aren’t quite there. They are a battleline unit and I think GW are cautious about point adjustments on core infantry unless its unavoidable. Hitting them would be a tax for playing Fyreslayers.

Where it perhaps becomes questionable in the Vulkyn Flameseeker receiving a 10 point hike. With a 50% win rate when included against a 56% without, this would be a unit that would actually need a points reduction in my eyes. Including them correlates with having slightly worse results. A points increase here risks discouraging internal variety and pushing players into the best-performing options.

A 10 point increase on the Auric Runesmiter feels hard to justify, and perhaps is another one where it would have benefited from a points drop. If GW are seeing something in their broader dataset, it isn’t showing up in two day GT results.

Auric Runefather, Grimwrath Berzerker appear to have received a points decrease to perhaps encourage their use a little more.

I do want to talk about the Battlesmith though. Lists featuring this unit have a 64% win rate as opposed to 53% without. This is a large uplift, although I admit it is on a more modest sample size. If the Fyreslayers continue to push the win rates in the couple of months this is the kind of warscroll that could become a problem. Not adjusting is defensible due to the number of games, but it’s one to keep an eye on.

Overall GW are making aggressive and inconsistent adjustments with Fyreslayers according to our data. The Runesmiter on Magmadroth increase is sensible and some of the smaller hero taxes are understandable but the Flameseeker and Runesmiter on foot increase run against what the GT data suggests and risks reducing the internal balance rather than improving it.

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.