One of the most misleading things about faction win rates is how convincing they look when two armies sit next to each other on the chart.

Cities of Sigmar and Gloomspite Gitz are a good example. Across the September Battlescroll both faction finished with almost identical headline win rates of 53%. To many players that reads as balance. Two factions that are equal in strength.

They are not the same, and this article is about why similar win rates can hide very different player experiences, and why relying on that one number can lead players to the wrong conclusions about what a faction is like when being used at a tournament.

The Illusion of Equality

If you only looked at win rates, then Cities and Gitz would be interchangeable. Both win roughly half their games and neither sits at the extremes. Neither faction looks like it is broken.

But win rates, as we’ve mentioned earlier in our series, answers only one question: How often the faction won. It won’t tell you how those wins were achieved, who’s achieving them and how often players walk away from events feeling like they had a decent weekend.

Once you start looking beyond that percentage, the picture changes.

Who is Actually Playing the Faction?

The first difference between the factions is who is taking them to events.

Cities of Sigmar has a relatively high average Elo but lower player numbers. A larger proportion of its games are played by experienced players, though it still has representation across the middle of the skill curve. It has slightly more appeal to competitive players and rewards strong fundamentals.

Gloomspite Gitz’ player base, while still high, is lower rated than Cities overall, with a much larger player base. It’s a faction that would appear to be chosen for its aesthetic and playstyle over being competitive.

That matters because a faction achieving a 53% win rate with a less experienced player base tells us something important. Gitz can generate wins without requiring tight, highly optimised play in every game.

Already we’re describing two different populations producing the same headline percentage.

What Does Success Look Like?

This is where faction win rate really starts to fall apart as player advice.

Cities of Sigmar shows a higher proportion of players finishing events with positive results. Almost 40% of players finished the weekend with 3-2 results, which reflects both consistency and the faction’s experienced player base.  Cities doesn’t spike events often, but many players walk away having felt competitive through the weekend.

While Gloomspite Gitz looks different. While its players are more likely than Cities to achieve three wins in the first three rounds of an event, there is a noticeable drop-off in later rounds. The 2-3 bracket is much larger, and far few players convert early success into strong final results.

What this suggests is a a faction that is tactically forgiving (players can win games even without perfect execution), but strategically volatile across a full tournament. As the event progresses Gitz struggle more at the top tables than Cities does.

Tactically Forgiving vs Strategically Forgiving

There is a difference. Gloomspite Gitz are tactically forgiving. Its mechanics and swing potential allow players to win games without flawless play or list optimisation. This helps explain why a lower Elo player base can still produce a strong overall win rate.

Cities of Sigmar is  less forgiving on a turn by turn bases. Mistakes can be punished more consistently and clean play matters.

But over the length of a weekend the roles reverse.

Cities is strategically forgiving. It recovers better across five rounds and produces steadier outcomes. Gitz by contrast are prone to late tournament collapse.

Both paths lead to the same win rate and the experience of getting there is very different.

How Fragile is Success?

Another difference lies in how dependent each faction is on certain choices.

Cities of Sigmar has reasonably large roster but would appear to have only a few viable builds. Its performance is spread across a smaller number of warscrolls with a vast amount of its roster being either ignored or experiencing very little play. Warscrolls like the Fusil-Major on Warhulk, Freeguild Cavaliers and Ironweld Great Cannon appear in the majority of lists.

This often happens when a smaller player bases identifies an optimised build and others follow. Success becomes concentrated, which can make the faction feel oppressive at times and fragile at others. Small rules or points changes may dramatically alter the performance even if the headline win rate barely moves.

Gitz shows broader warscroll usage. While not all choices are equally successful, far more of the roster sees meaningful pay. With a larger player base and lower average Elo, success is spread across different list types rather than being driven by a narrow core.

This contributes to both Gitz’ volatility and accessibility.

The Role of the Tournament Organiser and Battleplan Selections

Battleplans matter for each faction, but they matter unevenly.

Cities of Sigmars performs very well on five of the most popular battleplans, where it exceeds a 55% win rates, but struggles significantly on two others where their win rate is well below 45%.

Gits is more consistent across the battleplans with only one proving to be a significant advantage and one a clear problem.

As a result, Cities is more sensitive to the Battleplan selection than Gitz. Identical lists can feel dominant one weekend and underwhelming the next, depending entirely on which Battleplans the Tournament Organiser has chosen.

Again, this is invisible in the headline win rate.

Same Percentage, Different Questions

At this point the headline percentage of 53% becomes almost irrelevant.

Cities and Gitz may win their games at similar rates, but they ask very different things of their players.

Cities rewards experience, precision, and consistency. It performs better into top factions but pays for that with sensitivity to battleplans and narrower competitive cores.

Gloomspite Gitz is more accessible and tactically forgiving, allowing players to win games early and often, but struggles to convert that momentum into consistent late tournament success against top tier opposition.

Choosing between these factions based on the win rate alone, they are choosing blind.

What Players Should Take Away

This is the core of why I wrote the Data Literacy series.

Win rates aren’t lying to you, but they are summaries, and Summaries are dangerous when they’re treated as advice.

Two factions can sit on the same percentage and offer entirely different tournament experiences. One may feel consistent across battleplans but struggle into the top tier of factions. One may feel consistent but constrained. The other may feel explosive but unreliable.

Understanding which experience suits you matters more than the number reading 53%.

Final Thoughts

In our first article we talked about patience. In our second, interpretation. Now we’re talking above perspective.

Statistics don’t tell you what to play but they tell you what questions to ask.

Cities and Gitz look balanced at first glance. In practice, they are telling different stories and that gap is why win rates, taken alone, are such poor guides for players trying to understand their own results.

Same, same… but different.

Previous: Why Faction Win Rates Alone Are Bad