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.

Seraphon Analysis

Win Rate: 46% (Rank: 19th)
Average Elo: 429.7 (Rank: 19th)
Popularity: 652 Games (Rank: 9th)

Seraphon finish this battlescroll at 46%, placing them just inside the healthy band.

With above average popularity and the player skill base being lower in Elo than most other factions, the problem, could partly be the skill level of the population where novice players drag down the results of experienced ones.

However, any regular readers of our top 3 will note that Seraphon rarely feature.

Is this a faction being dragged down by inexperience? Or it is simply underperforming?

Unlike some other sub-50% factions, Seraphon do not suffer from a ‘single competitive list’ problem. Instead, they suffer from the opposite.

Looking at warscroll usage, aside from Aggradon Lancers, Seraphon are widely played across their warscrolls. Most core pieces see table time. On paper, this is exactly what we want to see from a healthy faction.

The problem is that this variety does not translate into results. The majority of commonly used warscrolls are between 44–49%, with very few units pushing above that range. Even traditional anchors such as Lord Kroak, Slann Starmaster, Kroxigor, and Hunters of Huanchi sit below 50% win rate when included.

The points changes here are reasonable and time will tell whether they are enough to see Seraphon climb back towards the middle of ideal range.

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.