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.

Flesh-eater Courts Analysis

Win Rate: 54% (Rank: 7th)
Average Elo: 445.7 (Rank: 7th)
Popularity: 989 Games (Rank 3rd)

Flesh-eater Courts sit just inside the healthy 45–55% band at 54%, and do so while being one of the most played factions in the game. That combination matters. High win rate and high popularity usually exposes balance problems very quickly, yet FEC have remained relatively stable.

The standout performers in the table are clearly the Royal Monster builds.

Both the Abhorrant Ghoul King on Royal Zombie Dragon and on Royal Terrorgheist push list win rates well above the faction average. In both cases, inclusion matches with results in the 57–64% range, while lists without them drop sharply, in some cases into the mid-40s.

These are the kind of warscrolls that GW should be reacting to: a small number of centre piece units that significantly raise the army’s ceiling.

The +10 point increases to these Ghoul King variants are therefore entirely justified. They don’t remove the archetype, but they do tax the most efficient versions of it.

Away from the big monsters, Flesh-eater Courts are well balanced.

Core units such as Cryptguard, Crypt Horrors, Crypt Ghouls, and common support heroes all cluster tightly around 53–55%, both when included and excluded. There is very little evidence of any “trap” units, and very few auto-includes that massively skew performance.

Even Ushoran, often assumed to be the army’s primary engine, sits at 52% when included and 57% without. That’s a unit appearing in lists that are already playing a slightly different game.

Most of the points reductions target units sitting below the healthy band.

Heroes such as Abhorrant Archregent, Varghulf Courtier, Crypt Infernal Courtier, and Abhorrant Gorewarden all show win rates in the low- to mid-40s when included, with much stronger faction performance when they are absent. These are the kind of units that benefit from small reductions, interesting tools that struggle to justify their cost.

The -10 adjustments here feel measured. They encourage variety without risking a sudden spike in power.

Flesh-eater Courts are in a very healthy place and sit within the target win-rate band, performing well across a large player base, and showing strong internal balance. GW’s points changes mostly reinforce that by taxing the monster builds that push performance upwards, while encouraging underused support options.

Despite what many may think, this is not a faction that needed major intervention, and GW appear to have recognised that.

If anything, Flesh-eater Courts are a good benchmark for what a well-balanced and popular army should look like.

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.