Category Archives: Chaos

Age of Sigmar, Army Lists, Chaos, Eduardo Rodriguez, Erich, Fantasy, Fittsy, Games Workshop, Hedonites of Slaanesh, Kharadron Overlords, Order, Peter Holland, Seraphon, Shawn Freed, Stormcast Eternals, Top three lists, Tournaments

Top Three AoS Lists for Mercia Madness IV

2 Comments

This is the top three AoS lists for Mercia Madness IV that took place in the UK between the 3rd and 4th of January 2026. It saw 28 players vying to be crowned champion in a 5-game tournament.

Before I jump into the Top Three AoS Lists, I wanted to remind everyone of our friendly Discord server where you can join in the conversation with the Woehammer crew and suggest articles or series for the website.

If you like what we’re doing, why not join our Patreon and help keep it going?

Also if there’s a one day or two day tournament you’d like us to cover drop us a comment on this post and we’ll have a look at it for you.

The Top Three AoS Lists

Kharadron Overlords
Pioneers and Scavengers (10 Points)
General’s Handbook 2025-26
Drops: 2

Battle Tactic Cards: Restless Energy, Wrathful Cycles

General’s Regiment
Endrinmaster with Endrinharness (150)
• General
• Karst-Bana Aether-Powered Combat Rig
• Bold As Brass
Arkanaut Ironclad (460)
Vongrim Harpoon Crew (240)
• Reinforced
Vongrim Salvagers (240)
• Reinforced

Regiment 1
Scourge of Ghyran Codewright (100)
Arkanaut Frigate (300)
• Zonbarcorp ‘Dealbreaker’ Battle Ram
Endrinriggers (220)
• Reinforced
Skywardens (260)
• Reinforced

Faction Terrain
Zontari Endrin Dock (20 Points)

Fittsy: Potentially I’d say Endrineers Guild is the subfaction everyone should be taking and yet here we go with Pioneers and Scavengers giving Vongrim a ward of 6+ when contesting objectives. Not bad on 40 wounds flying around the table if you think about it. To fill out the first regiment we’ve got a classic Endrinmaster Ironclad combo which greatly increases the value of the Ironclad but outs a huge target on the Endrinmaster’s head. To counteract this, I really like the Combat Rig for the ward of 5+, it’s also got a +1 attack. Bold as Brass you don’t see too much but it ups his Control to 7 making it together with the ironclad a good Combo for stealing objectives.

The second regiment has some more focussed melee and a frigate to deliver them with the mortals on a charge boatefact which is good on the Frigate if you don’t need the +2 move. Then we’ve got a Soggy Codewright which sees a bit of play due to it’s funky ability to slow the enemy or reduce combat proficiency in either hero phase (it’s a bit slot machiney though so not for the faint of heart). This is an interesting list we’ve got here with a really diverse selection of units. I think we’ll see more lists like this with all the changes to once per army on the abilities.
A two drop really helps keep pressure on from the KO side and may give a good chance at a double.

A really great effort with KO at the moment who have drifted back down to the middle of the pack after a couple of nerfs. Great work on the 5:0 to take the tournament Steven!

Fittsy: Hold the press, (Not literally…) I’m coming around on this list. The combination of Pioneers, a big boat, and Soggy Codewright means that your opponent may have -1 to hit and wound, 1 less rend into a 3+ save  (with AoD) and a 6+ ward. On top of that the Vongrim Harpoons with their start of Combat move can reduce the number of enemy models in combat. This makes for one tanky 20 wound unit that can take a serious charge and then let the rest of the army clap back. I think I’m going to be trying out something like this as soon as I can!

Grand Alliance Order | Stormcast Eternals | Sentinels of the Bleak Citadels
General’s Handbook 2025-26
Drops: 3
Spell Lore – Lore of the Storm
Prayer Lore – Prayers of the Stormhosts
Manifestation Lore – Aetherwrought Machineries
Battle Tactics Cards: Intercept and Recover and Restless Energy
—–
General’s Regiment
Scourge of Ghyran Iridan the Witness (320)
• General
Lord-Terminos (140)
• Quicksilver Draught
• Legendary Tenacity
Questor Soulsworn (200)
Reclusians (280)
• Reinforced
Vanguard-Raptors with Longstrike Crossbows (400)
• Reinforced
—
Regiment 1
Knight-Azyros (120)
Liberators (90)
Prosecutors (300)
• Reinforced
—
Regiment 2
Knight-Arcanum (120)
—–
Faction Terrain
Stormreach Portal (20)
—–

Eduardo Rodriguez: This stormcast list combines the durability of the Reclusians and the Questors with the powerful threat of the Raptors and the Prosecutors. The idea of this list is to advance the Reclusians while surrounding the Lord Terminos so there is no way that a charging opponent will not engage both units. If they charge, the Terminos will use the Quicksilver Draught to activate both units with strike first. This is the anvil of the list as they can get a 5+ ward from the subfaction. This strategy helps controlling the center of the board

On a different place the Soggy Iridan will bank points to try to give +1 attack or +1 rend to the Prosecutors with her prayers and it can slingshot them through the portal. In combination with the Longstrikes dropping from the sky, this list manages to threaten the opponents key units from anywhere on the board.

The other support units of the list are the Questor Soulsworn, the Knight Arcanum, and the Knight Azyros. The manifestations from the Arcanum can help reroll charges or to supply more damage when needed, while the Questor Soulsworn can play as either anvils, hammers or board control pieces when needed. Finally, the Azyros can help as a defensive piece giving -1 to hit, or help the Prosecutors retreat from an unfavourable position at the end of the turn.

Overall, this list has a lot of tools and is very versatile even when Stormcast is played as an elite army. Only great players can manage to get the full potential from it.

Seraphon | Shadowstrike Starhost
Points: 1990/2000 points
Drops: 2 drops
Battle Tactics: Master the Paths / Scouting Force
Spell Lore: Lore of Celestial Manipulation (20 pts)
Manifestation Lore: Aetherwrought Machineries
Faction Terrain: Realmshaper Engine
—–
General’s Regiment
Slann Starmaster (260)
• General
• Incandescent Rectrices
10x Raptadon Chargers (280)
• Reinforced
10x Raptadon Chargers (280)
• Reinforced
6x Aggradon Lancers (420)
• Reinforced
5x Saurus Guard (120)
—
Regiment 1
Skink Starpriest (90)
• Beastmaster
10x Raptadon Chargers (280)
• Reinforced
10x Raptadon Hunters (240)
• Reinforced

Shawn Freed: This Seraphon list is skink maxing for sure. 30 Raptadon Chargers that put out 17 damage per 10 are capable of surprisingly overwhelming medium level threats. Then a unit of Raptadon Hunters to keep up range pressure and hand out some +1 to hit. All of this in an extremely speedy package, capable of moving 16+D6″ in the presence of Beastmaster, Sotek Asterism, and the Shadows trike star host. Then 6 Aggradon Lancers to really put the hurt on. Everything I’ve mentioned so far can also be recurred with the Slann, making for a very hard to deal with army.

I like the decision of Scouting Force, as theres little one can do to stop them from scoring these at will. Master of the Paths is a bit more challenging, but using disposable, fast Raptadons should be able to dig out a hero and start scoring those tactics too.

This list is very efficient damage per point. Very fast. And Alex was able to leverage these into effective tactic choice and piloted to a respectable 4 -1!

Sorry! This part of content is hidden behind this box because it requires a higher contribution level ($1) at Patreon. Why not take this chance to increase your contribution?

Final Tournament Placings

At the time of writing, the final positions hadn’t yet been published and the above top 3 are based on their number of wins and table rankings at the end of the tournament.

For the full list of players, please see the event on BCP.

4th Edition, Age of Sigmar, Beasts of chaos, Big Waaagh!, Blades of Khorne, Chaos, Cities of Sigmar, Competitive, Daughters of Khaine, Death, Destruction, Disciples of Tzeentch, Fantasy, Flesh-Eater Courts, Fyreslayers, Games Workshop, Gloomspite Gitz, Hedonites of Slaanesh, Helsmiths of Hashut, Idoneth Deepkin, Ironjawz, Kharadron Overlords, Kruleboyz, Lumineth Realm-Lords, Maggotkin of Nurgle, Meta Analysis, Nighthaunt, Ogor Mawtribes, Order, Orruk Warclans, Ossiarch Bonereapers, Peter Holland, Seraphon, Skaventide, Slaves to Darkness, Sons of Behemat, Soulblight Gravelords, Stormcast Eternals, Sylvaneth, Tournaments

What is Meta Volatility?

Leave a comment

When players talk about Volatility, what they usually mean is visibility. A faction appears at the top of the results tables, dominates discussions for a few weeks, and is immediately declared “the problem”.

But genuine volatility isn’t about where a faction sits at a single point in time. It’s about the sustained rises or falls that persist for that faction.

Once you start looking at it that way, a large part of the perceived instability soon disappears.

For example, take Lumineth Realm-lords. They are often talked about, spells, builds and interactions. And yet their win rate barely moves. Across the last three battlescrolls,  December 2024, April, June and September they sit stubbornly in the mid 50s. (April: 54%, June: 55%, September: 55%). They exist, reliably, near the top of the pack, but importantly, within the healthy range. Flesh-eater Courts show a similar pattern (April: 52%, June: 51%, September: 54%). Minor drift, but nothing resembling real instability. 

These factions aren’t volatile, they’re stable but with very loud community conversations around them.

True volatility does exist, but it’s far rarer and much more informative when it does appear. Blades of Khorne are a textbook example. In April they sat comfortably around the 50% mark. But with the release of their new battletome, specific builds, particularly the much discussed Gorechosen Champions, were posting extraordinary results, pushing the faction well beyond what most players would consider healthy. But GW soon corrected this and the faction dropped sharply, landing well below its peak.

Kruleboyz (April: 50%, June: 58%, September: 44%) followed a similar arc. A moment of success and then a clear fall. Short-term dominance was identified and brought back into line. When players point to these swings to prove instability, they’re actually pointing at one of the healthiest signs a competitive game can show, that outliers are temporary.

More interesting than the spikes, are the factions that never leave. Disciples of Tzeentch (April: 51%, June: 50%, September: 57%) barely register in community panic circles, yet quietly climb from average performance to sitting firmly among the top factions.

The most dangerous armies in any meta aren’t the ones that spike and attract attention, they’re the ones that survive corrections.  They are harder to tech against and show more reliable tournament success.

What the data shows is a meta that is elastic. Strong factions often remain strong without becoming oppressive. Weak factions don’t magically solve themselves. Most of the movement happens in the middle, where small advantages are increased by player behaviour  and the local metas. What players interpret as instability is usually just reaction time and social media moving faster than the data.

The lesson is simple. Chasing hot lists and sudden spikes may reward the short term, but will leave players with redundant models in the long term. How many players now have a ton of Pyregheist?

The AoS Meta favours armies with depth and resilience. The game isn’t unstable, players just panic quicker than the numbers can change.

The next time someone says the meta is broken, it may be worth asking how many battlescrolls they checked before deciding that.

Age of Sigmar, Blades of Khorne, Chaos, Chat with the Champs, Daughters of Khaine, Death, Disciples of Tzeentch, Fantasy, Flesh-Eater Courts, Games Workshop, Hedonites of Slaanesh, Kharadron Overlords, Maggotkin of Nurgle, Nighthaunt, Order, Peter Holland, Sylvaneth, Tournaments

Chat with the Champs: Predicting the Meta

Leave a comment

To kick off 2026, we opened the doors on the Woehammer Discord for a Chat with the Champs. An informed discussion with experienced tournament players about where the Age of Sigmar meta might be heading next.

The intention isn’t to predict exact win rates, instead, it was to talk about what the players are feeling and which factions look  well placed into the new Battlescroll.

What follows is more coherent than it first appeared.

“I have a sneaky suspicion that wound density is about to become a whole lot more important.“

Roland Rivera

Wound Density Over Precision

Some of the strongest discussion was around whether the game is rewarding armies that can simply stay on the table.

Several players pointed out that many current top lists operate on thin margins. Lose one key unit, sometimes even a few models, and the list collapses. But armies that can put large amounts of wounds on the table, particularly with decent saves or wards, are better placed to absorb losses while still maintaining board control.

“A lot of the top builds are operating on razor thin margins. Armies that can put 130+ health with good saves or wards on the table will be able to weather losses and maintain board position.”

Roland Rivera

It’s not that damage output no longer matters, but that durability and redundancy are possibly becoming more important than efficiency. Lists that rely on perfect trades are fragile against chip damage and mortal wounds.

That fed into which factions players expect to rise.

Shooting Isn’t Dead

There was some debate around whether shooting is about to become more common again.

It was generally agreed that Kharadron Overlords have been hit hard, but several players noted that changes to obscuring may encourage targeted shooting elsewhere, particularly in Stormcast Eternals lists featuring Longstrikes.

The difference here is that nobody is expecting a return to shooting dominanting the games. Instead, it’s for targeted shooting supporting armies that can fight for space.

“Shooting units have been included little by little. Obscuring has changed, and it’s easier now to justify bringing more shooting than before.”

Luis Mendoza

Sylvaneth: Finally Turning Up?

Sylvaneth came up often and mostly positively.

There was agreement that Sylvaneth are now going to be where many players expected them to be earlier in the season. With strong internal balance and being able to pressure multiple parts of the board have made them competitive.

Some players commented that they’ve taken Sylvaneth into events with only a little practice and still felt comfortable.

“My last GT I played Sylvaneth with only one practice game, and I don’t regret the decision. Really fun.”

Luis Mendoza

Generally we think that Sylvaneth are making a real push, and a good example of a faction that benefits from flexibility.

Nighthaunt

Nighthaunt were a point of uncertainty.

While not many expect them to continue at their previous heights, there was no agreement that they’ve fallen off a cliff. Instead, the view is that Nighthaunt have been nudged back into the middle of the pack.

Some remain unconvinced they’ll still contend, while others are waiting to see whether a new list type emerges. Either way, the sense was that Nighthaunt are now suitably back im the middle of the field again.

Khorne, Powerful in the Right Hands

Many players felt Khorne is ready to rise, with several suggesting they’ll easily make the top ten. Recent buffs were mostly seen as meaningful.


That said, there was an important point, Khorne isn’t easy.

“The trouble with Khorne is they’re not easy to play. Experienced players can make them sing, but newer players…”

Peter Holland

Several players noted that while experienced players can do well with Khorne, newer players may struggle. That usually means a faction can get strong results without meta chasers running to them. This often allows a faction to fly under the radar longer than expected.

Tzeentch and Slaanesh

As well as Sylvaneth, there were a few other factions that had quietly avoided the gaze of GW.

Disciples of Tzeentch were described as largely untouched by the changes, with the opinion that their win rate may climb. Flesh-eater Courts were also mentioned as quietly well positioned thanks to their warscrolls and ability to pressure opponents.

Hedonites of Slaanesh have some optimism. While competitive, several players had concerns that they may struggle in a meta leaning towards chip damage and particularly if Nurgle becomes prevalent.

Nurgle

Speaking of Nurgle, almost everyone agreed that it was too early to be certain.

The new rules look strong, the mechanics appear decent in practice, and there’s a sense that Nurgle could be a problem. But, everything hinges on points. Several players stressed that without seeing costs and unit sizes, any prediction is just pure guess work.

“New Nurgle has the potential to be extremely strong, but it’s points dependent, and we likely won’t see much of the new stuff until the next battlescroll.”

Popliteal

That said, if Nurgle lands cheaply and brings large, resilient units to the table, many expect it to put pressure on factions reliant on recursion and healing.

Final Thoughts

If there’s a single takeaway from this chat, it’s that the next phase of the meta looks about discovering which factions are structurally sound.

Armies with large wound pools and multiple viable builds, as well as redundancy are the ones players are quietly backing.

Whether the data will show that remains to be seen, but the instincts of experienced players are a good indicator of where the meta is really heading.

Age of Sigmar, Beasts of chaos, Blades of Khorne, Cities of Sigmar, Competitive, Daughters of Khaine, Disciples of Tzeentch, Fantasy, Flesh-Eater Courts, Fyreslayers, Games Workshop, Gloomspite Gitz, Hedonites of Slaanesh, Helsmiths of Hashut, Idoneth Deepkin, Ironjawz, Kharadron Overlords, Kruleboyz, Lumineth Realm-Lords, Maggotkin of Nurgle, Meta Analysis, Nighthaunt, Ogor Mawtribes, Orruk Warclans, Ossiarch Bonereapers, Seraphon, Skaventide, Slaves to Darkness, Sons of Behemat, Soulblight Gravelords, Stormcast Eternals, Sylvaneth, Tournaments

New Battlescroll Strength: Woehammer Estimates

Leave a comment

Over the last couple of weeks you’ll have seen we’ve published an article for each faction discussing the recent points adjustments.

We normally don’t do tier lists and we won’t be now. Instead ill be giving each faction an estimation of where I think their win rate will be in the next Battlescroll. I’ve gone in order of how they finished within our win rates under the last battlescroll.

So let’s jump in.

Nighthaunt

Nighthaunt we’re hit heavily by points increaaesand a nerf to the Pyregheist ability.

September Battlescroll: 57%

Estimated Win rate: 51-53%

Disciples of Tzeentch

Disciples escaped the update pretty much unscathed with 10 point increases to Tzaangors and the Thaumaturge. I don’t expect them to shift too much and I think they’ll remain one of the top factions.

September Battlescroll: 57%

Estimated Win Rate: 55-57%

Daughters of Khaine

Daughters quietly went about their business last battlescroll sitting in 3rd with 57% but as one of the most unrepresented. They’ve been piloted by high elo players so far, I expect if we see more players flock to them that win rate will drop despite very little changes to their points. But if their player base remains the same I can’t see them moving too much.

September Battlescroll: 57%

Estimated Win Rate: 54-56%

Hedonites of Slaanesh

Hedonites had the second lowest popularity but one of the highest Elos and I don’t expect that to change. Hedonites appeared to benefit from the latest points update rather than being hindered,so I expect we’ll see them near the top of the pile.

September Battlescroll: 56%

Estimated Win Rate: 55-57%

Lumineth Realm-lords

This was another faction who managed to walk away pretty from the points update. With only minor points increases and a number of points drops I expect we’ll see Lumineth in the top 6 factions.

September Battlescroll: 55%

Estimated Win Rate: 55-57%

Fyreslayers

This one will have hurt our angry little friends. With points increases across their pool, GW have decided they don’t like them that much. But perhaps there’s some hope on the horizon with the upcoming Battletome.

September Battlescroll: 54%

Estimated Win Rate: 49-51%

Flesh-eater Courts

Since writing the article linked, I’ve actually changed my mind slightly. I think FEC should have probably had a little more in the way of points increases. I believe as a result we’ll see them slightly improve.

September Battlescroll: 54%

Estimated Win Rate: 54-56%

Kharadron Overlords

Kharadron Overlords had some targeted points increases and I don’t think these will pull the most oppressive faction down in the ratings slightly.

September Battlescroll: 54%

Estimated Win Rate: 48-50%

Gloomspite Gitz

Sun Stealas suffered quite heavily in this round of points hand outs and as a result many players will feel their lists are now unplayable. That’s perhaps a tad dramatic.

September Battlescroll: 53%

Estimated Win Rate: 50-52%

Cities of Sigmar

Cities were fairly balanced before the adjustments and the points changes were perhaps a little too wide for them to maintain their current position.

September Battlescroll: 53%

Estimated Win Rate: 48-50%

Sylvaneth

I believe Sylvaneth benefitted quite a bit from this Battlescroll and along with thr nerfs to factions above them, I think we’ll see them place quite highly.

September Battlescroll: 52%

Estimated Win Rate: 55-57%

Ironjawz

The points reductions target genuine underperforming units, which is good. The points increases, however, don’t feel necessary and risk nudging them downwards for reasons not supported by GT results.

September Battlescroll: 52%

Estimated Win Rate: 48-50%

Skaven

GW quite rightly punished the abuse of the Deathmaster lists, but otherwise they were  given points reductions elsewhere. I expect to see them climb.

September Battlescroll: 50%

Estimated Win Rate: 50-52%

Ossiarch Bonereapers

A few points reductions may improve the Bonereapers slightly, but don’t expect them to be lighting up the tables.

September Battlescroll: 49%

Estimated Win Rate: 49-51%

Stormcast Eternals

Very little changes here. I think that perhaps the largest effect on the win rate will be the player base and whether mix of experienced and newer players changes.

September Battlescroll: 49%

Estimated Win Rate: 48-50%

Maggotkin of Nurgle

A new slate for Nurgle with the new Battletome. First impressions appear to be decent enough.

September Battlescroll: 49%

Estimated Win Rate: 49-51%

Soulblight Gravelords

Soulblight are well balanced at 48%, and GW recognised that with light point reductions mainly on under achievers. Expect the same.

September Battlescroll: 48%

Estimated Win Rate: 48-50%

Idoneth Deepkin

Idoneth recieved a number of points cuts to underperforming units. But these will have very little affect on the rates of the faction.

September Battlescroll: 47%

Estimated Win Rate: 47-49%

Seraphon

The majority of their warscrolls sit at 44-49% and players are certainly experimenting. The points changes are reasonable, and they may claw a few percentiles up the rankings.

September Battlescroll: 46%

Estimated Win Rate: 46-48%

Blades of Khorne

From a balance perspective, Blades of Khorne actually sit in a very “honest” place. They are inside the healthy band and reward good decision making.

The downside is, compared to factions sitting closer to 50–52%, Khorne players often need to do more for the same results.

September Battlescroll: 45%

Estimated Win Rate: 47-49%

Slaves to Darkness

GW are attempting to encourage more Legion of the First Prince and tempting them away from the usual Varanguard lists. I doubt whether they’ve managed this.

September Battlescroll: 45%

Estimated Win Rate: 45-47%

Kruleboyz

Points reductions for the named characters will help a little. But shooting lists are not working out for Kruleboyz. A switch to melee builds may help.

September Battlescroll: 44%

Estimated Win Rate: 43-45%

Ogor Mawtribes

Ogors got a number of points drops. It may help them, but overall they’re performing poorly (apart from players like @carsonwhitlock123). Perhaps they’ll improve.

September Battlescroll: 43%

Estimated Win Rate: 45-47%

Sons of Behemat

Mega Gargants do not dominate the table the way they used to in 3rd edition. They don’t score efficiently and they struggle against a lot of factions who can bring a high volume of mortal wounds to the board. They’re easy to pin or even ignore.

September Battlescroll: 43%

Estimated Win Rate: 42-44%

Helsmiths of Hashut

Helsmiths are complicated to play and there are no easy win warscrolls. Players are learning the faction as they go. The win rates will improve, but not by too much.

September Battlescroll: 41%

Estimated Win Rate: 44-46%

4th Edition, Age of Sigmar, Chaos, Competitive, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Helsmiths of Hashut, Meta Analysis, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Helsmiths of Hashut

Leave a comment

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.

Helsmiths of Hashut Analysis

Win Rate: 41% (Rank: 25th)
Average Elo: 398.7 (Rank: 25th)
Popularity: 179 Games (Rank: 25th)

At face value, Helsmiths of Hashut are the weakest performing faction in the game. However, unlike most armies at the bottom of the rankings, context matters more here than almost anywhere else.

This is a brand-new faction, released only in the last couple of months. Many players are still assembling and painting models, which naturally means they don’t feature as much yet and skews the sample toward early adopters and hobby-first players rather than hardened tournament grinders.

Not only are Helsmiths new, with Daemonic Power Points (DPP), they are not simple to play. DPP adds another layer of management to the game for Helsmiths players that can be hard to track and remember for newer players.

That matters because the early data can be affected by players learning the faction at events and suboptimal builds being tested on the fly.

Whats notable though is that no one warscroll appears to be pushing the win rate up. There’s nothing that allows the players a little forgiveness when playing which explains the early results.

But it does perhaps suggest that given time and experience the faction may begin to pay off for players who persist with them.

GWs points reductions are in line with these thoughts. They are reluctant (understandably) to make any massive changes to the faction in its infancy and would perhaps like to see what the results say once more players pick them up.

I expect we’ll see Helsmiths improve to just within the healthy band.

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.

4th Edition, Age of Sigmar, Chaos, Competitive, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Meta Analysis, Peter Holland, Slaves to Darkness, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Slaves to Darkness

Leave a comment

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.

Slaves to Darkness Analysis

Win Rate: 45% (Rank: 21st)
Average Elo: 427.6 (Rank: 20th)
Popularity: 971 Games (Rank: 4th)

Slaves to Darkness finish this battlescroll at 45%, placing them right on the lower end of the healthy band. With very high popularity and a slightly below-average Elo, this is a faction that is widely played but demands a lot from its players.

Slaves to Darkness have one of the largest warscroll pools in the game, and while most of them see play, we see a number of them feature in most of the lists at top tables. Those being Chaos Knight, Varaguard, Chosen, Warriors and Be’lakor.

The most commonly used warscrolls sit between 43–47% when included. Even units such as Archaon, Be’lakor, Varanguard, and Chaos Knights do not push the faction’s results. There are isolated spikes, such as the Centaurion Marshal and Eternus that stand out, but these appear in low numbers and do not affect the competitive meta.

A notable feature of this battlescroll is the attention given to Legion of the First Prince, with several daemon warscrolls receiving significant points reductions.

They suggest GW want to encourage this subfaction. While LotFP has not been dominating so far, GW appear to be attempting to nudge it into relevance through points efficiency.

Whether that turns into competitive success remains to be seen, but it is an attempt to broaden list types away from Varanguard, Knights and Be’lakor.

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.

4th Edition, Age of Sigmar, Blades of Khorne, Chaos, Competitive, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Meta Analysis, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Blades of Khorne

Leave a comment

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.

Blades of Khorne Analysis

Win Rate: 45% (Rank: 20th)
Average Elo: 433.7 (Rank: 14th)
Popularity: 527 Games (Rank: 13th)

Blades of Khorne close out this battlescroll sitting exactly on the lower boundary of the healthy band at 45%. With an average Elo and popularity, they’re not being propped up by elite players or dragged down by newer ones. This is an honest reflection of their current power level. They’re playable, but hard work.

The most common centrepieces such as Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirsters, Unfettered Fury, and Bloodcrushers sit around the 50–52% mark when included in lists. That’s fine individually, but there’s nothing here that makes up for the faction’s wider inefficiencies. As a result, players have to rely on tight play and correct sequencing.

Most of the points changes are as you would expect, reductions to underperforming units sitting in the low-40% range. These are adjustments aimed at bringing up the poorer performing units.

From a balance perspective, Blades of Khorne actually sit in a very “honest” place. They are inside the healthy band and reward good decision making.

The downside is, compared to factions sitting closer to 50–52%, Khorne players often need to do more for the same results.

We may see Khorne creep up towards 47-48% but I would be surprised to see anything more from them.

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.

4th Edition, Age of Sigmar, Chaos, Competitive, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Maggotkin of Nurgle, Meta Analysis, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Maggotkin of Nurgle

Leave a comment

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.

Maggotkin of Nurgle Analysis

Win Rate: 49% (Rank: 16th)
Average Elo: 434.6 (Rank: 13th)
Popularity: 496 Games (Rank: 14th)

Maggotkin of Nurgle finish this battlescroll sitting just under the ideal midpoint at 49%, with middling popularity and an average Elo.

Given that a new Battletome is imminent, it’s no surprise that Games Workshop have chosen to leave Nurgle untouched.

Nurgle’s warscroll data paints a picture of wide usage but varied performance.

The most common units sit between 46–51% when included, with very few pushing above the faction average. Even the better-performing heroes such as the Lord of Afflictions top out around 55% and appear in lower numbers.

At the other end of the scale, there are plenty of underperformers but they are spread across different list builds. This suggests a faction that is playable but lacks a competitive edge.

Nurgle struggle to convert games at the top end. They win through attrition and board control, but they don’t spike hard enough to punish mistakes or close games decisively.

Maggotkin of Nurgle are close enough to 50%. They are not oppressive, and they are clearly waiting for structural changes rather than numerical ones.

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.

4th Edition, Age of Sigmar, Chaos, Competitive, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Meta Analysis, Peter Holland, Skaventide, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Skaven

Leave a comment

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.

Skaven Analysis

Win Rate: 50% (Rank: 13th)
Average Elo: 420.2 (Rank: 22nd)
Popularity: 1181 Games (Rank 2nd)

Skaven land exactly where you’d want them, at 50%. Given their massive popularity and fairly low Elo this is another well balanced army.

GW have actually made me chuckle here. They’ve sent a message to the Skaven players over the Deathmaster – “You can’t be trusted!”. With a +10 to their points even though they’re at 50% win rate both when included and excluded GW are saying ‘Stop doing that!’ This is GW slapping those players on the wrist. Fair.

Why no points increase for Plague Monks? 60% when included, 46% without and a large sample size. Prime candidate right? Because they are not the problem unit. They are cheap bodies and buff recipients. GW learned that taxing core infantry in Skaven tends to punish players and collapse list types. Instead GW chose to adjust the units around the Plague Monks.

Some of you may also be expecting a whole host of points drops for those underperformers at the bottom of the list. But if GW started handing out -10s everwhere you’d get the risk of broken lists and GW wouldn’t be able to track the cause of the break. Instead GW made selective reductions with Stormfiends, Stormvermin, Thanquol and Vizzik. There are all either centrepieces that should feel better or units that players actually want to use.

Units like Globadiers, Hell Pit Abomination, Plagueclaw, Grey Seer on foot and Warlock Engineer are all underperforming, but touching them all at once would be reckless.

This way GW leave the core intact but try and discourage those abusive lists. They’re also trying to encourage those much loved centrepieces.

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.

4th Edition, Age of Sigmar, Chaos, Competitive, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Hedonites of Slaanesh, Meta Analysis, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Hedonites of Slaanesh

Leave a comment

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.