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.
Hedonites of Slaanesh Analysis
Win Rate: 56% (Rank: 4th)
Average Elo: 451.4 (Rank: 5th)
Popularity: 258 Games (Rank 24th)
Hedonites of Slaanesh finish just outside the healthy band at 56%, but unlike Daughters of Khaine, this isn’t a case of tight internal balance or player-only skill. Slaanesh’s performance is driven by a handful of very strong warscrolls, which also happen to be the main battleline units. A number of heroes do actively drag lists down when included however, but the players are seemingly wise to this in their list building.
GW should have punished a number of warscrolls that push lists well beyond the 55% ceiling, all of which have meaningful sample sizes. Glutos Orscollion (66% with, 44% without), Slaanesh Fiendbloods (61% with, 41% without), Sigvald (61% with, 49% without) and Slickblade Seekers (62% with and 52% without) all were left untouched where a points hike of perhaps 10-20 points would have felt justified.
The points cuts to both versions of Syll’Esske and the Masque feels justified. But again, they’ve left Daemonettes and the Keeper of Secrets untouched, why? Admittedly, it probably wouldn’t fix any underlying issues with them, as they need to be worth taking even with a points drop.
I also feel that +10 points to Invaders is far too soft.
I expect Hedonites to continue to be a problem into the next Battlescroll.
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.
