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.

Cities of Sigmar Analysis

Win Rate: 53% (Rank: 10th)
Average Elo: 462.7 (Rank: 1st)
Popularity: 408 Games (Rank 20th)

Cities of Sigmar finish this battlescroll inside the healthy 45–55% band at 53%. On the surface, that looks unremarkable. But when digging a little deeper the picture changes. Cities are being piloted by the strongest average player base in the game, while remaining relatively unpopular.

This is a faction winning because very good players are making the most of its warscroll pool.

Cities’ best-performing warscrolls skew heavily toward combined-arms pressure, rather than raw damage alone.

Units such as the Steam Tank Commander, Fusil-Major on Ogor Warhulk, Freeguild Command Corps, and Callis and Toll all sit comfortably above the faction average when included, in several cases pushing lists toward the top end of the healthy band or beyond.

The Fusil-Major on Ogor Warhulk stands out in particular. With a strong win rate when included and a dramatic drop-off when excluded, the +10 points increase here is entirely justified.

Similarly, the +20 to Callis and Toll is defensible. While their win rate isn’t outrageous, their consistency across successful builds makes them a clear efficiency piece rather than a flavour choice.

GW have applied a relatively broad spread of +10 point increases across its artillery and support heroes.

Individually, most of these increases are understandable. But altogether they risk overlapping too much on the same list type. Cities’ success comes from stacking good warscrolls together. Taxing all of those at once may have a larger effect than GW intend, especially considering the faction was already within the healthy band and not very popular. 

This is a case where the faction’s skilled player base may be doing some of the work that points changes are trying to correct.

One of the things that stands out in the data is just how many warscrolls sit well below 45% when included.

A large number of warscrolls, in particularly older Freeguild infantry, Duardin legacy units, and several Dark Elf options drag list performance down. They are units that struggle to justify their inclusion at all, especially with constant rumours of their imminent demise.

GW have largely left these untouched, which is understandable given sample sizes, but it reinforces the idea that Cities’ success comes from a narrow set of optimised builds, not from internal balance.

Cities of Sigmar are balanced at the faction level, but unbalanced internally. Their 53% win rate is heavily influenced by a skilled player base selecting from a small number of efficient warscrolls.

GW’s points changes largely target the right units, but the number of increases risks overcorrecting a faction that was generally behaving itself.

If Cities fall back slightly in the next cycle, that will likely reflect points pressure stacking up.

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.