There was a discussion on Kings of War Fanatics recently about whether certain artifacts—like the Lute of Insatiable Darkness—are used more often by top players or if they show up evenly across the field, triggered by a question about whether Bane Chant is simply too good. It’s a good question, and with a large dataset from the UK Clash of Kings 2024 event (180 players), we can actually dig into it. I crunched the full army-list import file and final standings to see if artifacts like the Lute separate the sharks from the chum.
Short answer: the Lute shows up at about the same rate everywhere. Here’s the breakdown:
| Standings quartile | Players | Took Lute | % with Lute |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (top 25 %) | 48 | 9 | 18.8 % |
| 2 | 47 | 9 | 19.1 % |
| 3 | 48 | 13 | 27.1 % |
| 4 (bottom 25 %) | 47 | 6 | 12.8 % |
- The third quartile spikes a bit, but with ~50 players per band that’s probably noise.
- Top-table generals run the Lute in one list out of five—handy, but not mandatory.
- The bottom quartile lags, yet still fields the item often enough to kill any “secret sauce” narrative.
Do Stronger Players Spend More on Artifacts in General?
After looking at the Lute specifically, I started wondering whether magic item usage in general skews toward strong or struggling players. Do top performers load up on artifacts to optimize every edge, or do less experienced players rely on them to shore up weaknesses?
To answer that, I dug deeper into the same dataset and totalled every army’s magic-item points, then sliced by quartile:
| Quartile | Total item pts | Avg / player | Median / player |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3,420 | 71.3 | 60 |
| 2 | 3,365 | 71.2 | 65 |
| 3 | 3,650 | 76.0 | 70 |
| 4 | 2,745 | 58.4 | 50 |
- Q1-Q3 spend is basically identical—roughly 70 pts per list.
- The bottom quartile drops ~13 pts on average. Fewer high-impact toys, more bare-bones units.
Why might this be happening? One theory is that lower-performing players are prioritizing more units on the board—classic “boys over toys” thinking—especially in horde-style armies. They might see artifacts as luxuries rather than core elements. Meanwhile, top players may be maximizing their list’s efficiency with high-impact, problem-solving items—what I’ve previously called the gladiator approach over the bricklayer one.
I’m curious what others think. Do you see this pattern in your local scene? Any other theories about why lower-quartile armies are skimping on artifacts? Let me know.
Artifacts That Skew by Performance
Next, I wanted to look into whether—even if the analysis doesn’t hold strongly for the Lute—there are other artifacts that top players seem to prioritize while bottom players largely ignore, or vice versa. I filtered for items with at least a handful of uses and looked at the gap between the top and bottom quartiles. Five stand out:
| Artifact | Uses | Top-25 % | Bottom-25 % | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sir Jesse’s Boots of Striding | 80 | 50.0 % | 29.8 % | ▲ 20 pts |
| Blade of Slashing | 36 | 10.4 % | 27.7 % | ▼ 17 pts |
| Gnome-Glass Shield | 18 | 16.7 % | 0 % | ▲ 17 pts |
| Healing Brew | 19 | 2.1 % | 14.9 % | ▼ 13 pts |
| Fire-Oil | 21 | 14.6 % | 2.1 % | ▲ 13 pts |
- ▲ = item taken markedly more by top 25 %
- ▼ = item favored by the bottom 25 %
Take-aways
- The Lute is everywhere. Grab it if your list wants a cheap Bane Chant, but don’t expect it to elevate you on its own.
- Point spend matters less than where you put it. Strong players invest roughly the same total points, just in higher-leverage slots.
- Mobility and burst-utility win games. Boots, Gnome-Glass, and Fire-Oil are all about fixing match-ups or threat projection on demand.
One of the clearest examples here is the Gnome-Glass Shield, which was used 18 times in the event—but never by a player in the bottom quartile. Every single instance appeared in the top 75% of finishers, and most were in the top half.
Every one of these is a fast, combat-oriented hero—usually the kind of piece that wants to initiate fights, force reactions, or hold key ground. These aren’t backline support characters; they’re pressure pieces. Gnome-Glass Shield makes sense as a one-turn defense spike for models that expect to dive into danger and survive just long enough to matter.
Thanks again to those who raised the original question—always happy to dig into the data and see what patterns emerge. If you’ve got follow-up questions or want to explore a related angle, let me know.
