With 4th Edition, list construction has changed. The new rules also bring a new meta and new data structures, so I have updated how I compare armies.
In my previous analyses, such as Unit Cost-Effectiveness: Army vs Army Comparisons and the Clash of Kings 2025 Update, I ranked armies based on a “standard” composition of Regiments and Hordes. But 4th Edition changes that structure. Army construction now uses the new categories: Core, Auxiliary, Specialist, and Support.
To keep up, I’ve rewritten my simulation scripts to reflect how we actually build lists now. The goal remains the same: to find which armies offer the most efficiency for their points.
The New Methodology: Adapting to the 4th Edition Structure
The old “Top 3 Regiments + Top 2 Hordes” approach no longer fits the new structure. It does not reflect the new unlocking mechanics or the restrictions on Specialists and Support.
I updated the Python script to pull the most cost-effective units from each of the new 4th Edition categories. My goal was to simulate a “Power Build”—if you were trying to maximize the raw efficiency of your list, what would you take?
Selection Criteria
Instead of arbitrary slots, the script now selects the top performers from each category to create a composite “Army Score”:
- Core: Top 2 Units
- Auxiliary: Top 1 Unit
- Specialist: Top 2 Units
- Support: Top 2 Units
The “Best-in-Slot” Weighting (The Spam Factor)
I also tweaked how I calculate the final score. In a competitive list, you rarely take a “diverse spread” of units for the sake of variety. You identify the most efficient hammer or the most efficient chaff, and you take as many as the points limit allows.
To reflect this behavior, I applied a heuristic weighting system:
- The #1 Unit in a category gets a 1.5x multiplier.
- The #2 Unit (where applicable) gets a 1.0x multiplier.
This heavily favors armies that have at least one clear standout in a category (The “Spam Factor”), rather than armies with several above-average units. If your best Core unit is highly efficient, your score rises because a competitive list may use it as a foundation.
The Rankings
Based on 2.5 million combat simulations and the new weighting system, here is how the factions stack up in raw efficiency.
KoW 4E Unit Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis & Disclaimers (Read Before You Rage)
Before using Kingdoms of Men’s 16.4 score as a reason to buy an army, there are a few limitations to cover.
1. The Kingdoms of Men Outlier
Kingdoms of Men’s 16.4 score is high enough to treat cautiously. This is likely an artifact of the Elo per Point metric. The model gives strong scores to low-cost units that perform even slightly above average. If KoM has a 70-point Core unit that punches slightly above its weight, the low point cost can raise its score substantially. This does not mean KoM will win every tournament; it means the model sees good value in their stats. We’ve already seen several lists use halberdiers and Dogs of War to create some high-Unit Strength builds.
2. The “Spherical Cow” Problem
As always, this model simulates units fighting in a vacuum. It tends to favor high Defense and Crushing Strength (Empire of Dust, Undead), while understating the value of synergy.
- Nightstalkers (2.6): They are at the bottom because their strength comes from Mindthirst and stealth—none of which show up in a raw “stat-check” simulation.
- Northern Alliance (7.4): Similar issue. If your army relies on aura stacking or complex interactions, this model will undervalue you every time. Similarly, armies with a variety of plausible builds instead of one spammable build score lower from a pure stat perspective.
3. Heuristic Weighting is an Art, Not a Science
The 1.5x / 1.0x weighting split is admittedly arbitrary. I didn’t run a regression against 4th Edition tournament wins (because they haven’t happened yet). I chose these weights because they felt right for how competitive players build lists: you identify the broken unit, and you lean on it. But this is a heuristic, not a law of physics.
4. Data Parsing in a New Edition
We are still scrubbing the data for the new edition. There are bound to be parsing errors or keyword interactions that the simulator doesn’t perfectly capture yet. Treat this as a “Beta” release of the rankings. As Elliot fixes the various errors (and I can load them into my model), we’ll see shifts in units and thus armies.
Conclusion
The data suggests that Empire of Dust, Goblins, and Undead remain among the strongest factions in this raw-stat comparison for the new edition. If you want an army with strong raw stats, good points efficiency, and solid grind, these are reasonable options to consider.
Nightstalkers, Forces of Nature, and Northern Alliance should be read in context. Their low rankings reflect the limits of a raw-stat model; movement, terrain, and synergy can still help them win games even when the numbers look less favorable.
