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.
Disciples of Tzeentch Analysis
Win Rate: 57% (Rank: 2nd)
Average Elo: 439.6 (Rank: 11th)
Popularity: 348 Games (Rank 21st)
Disciples of Tzeentch end the battletome in second place with a 57% win rate, placing them outside the healthy 45–55% band. This is particularly notable given their below-average popularity; Tzeentch are being carried by the efficiency in the lists being used. Combined with a solid average Elo, this suggests the faction is rewarding competent play rather than being propped up by a small number of outliers.
The +10 points increase to Scourge of Ghyran Ogroid Thaumaturge is broadly defensible. Lists featuring the unit sit at 61%, compared to 54% without it. While not as bas as some other offenders across the meta, it clearly nudges lists outside the ideal range and justifies an adjustment, though I would have been perhaps a little more heavy-handed and actually have given them +20 instead.
Similarly, the +10 increase to Tzaangors is reasonable. With a 56% win rate when included, they sit just above the healthy band, and broadly aligns with the data.
Where this update starts to feel light is in what GW didn’t meaningfully address.
Several units sit comfortably above the 55% threshold with meaningful sample sizes and no points changes at all. Kairos Fateweaver, in particular, stands out. Lists including Kairos perform at 57%, while those without him drop to 48%. That is an indication of a warscroll almost carrying a faction. Leaving him untouched feels like a missed opportunity, especially given his central role in many competitive builds.
Likewise, Kairic Acolytes and Tzaangor Enlightened on Discs both sit at 57% with healthy usage. These are not fringe picks, and are core components of successful lists, the lack of any adjustment here suggests GW were reluctant to disrupt the army’s internal structure too much.
At the other end of the spectrum, the -10 point reductions to Gaunt Summoners and Curseling, Eye of Tzeentch seem to suggest that GW would like more players to use these units in their lists. Though why they have not done the same with the Changeling, Summoner on Disc and Magister on foot is slightly baffling.
Games Workshop have correctly identified that Disciples of Tzeentch needed some form of adjustment, but the response feels overly cautious. The faction’s strongest warscrolls remain largely untouched, this risks leaving Tzeentch hovering above the 55% mark rather than decisively pulling them back into the healthy range.
Further points drops at the lower end could have broadened internal balance.
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.
