It’s worth noting that large numbers of players go to clash for the community and for the social/hobby side. Not every list is optimised to win! Mine certainly isn’t, and I know plenty of others in the same boat.
3 Likes
A quick comparison to the 2024 and 2025 COK . . .
What Fourth Edition Changed at UK Clash of Kings: 2024–2026 Compared – Data & Dice
1 Like
The removal/merging back of parent & theme lists is obviously the reason for a reduced number of individual factions.
In 4th, a couple of the combined armies have retained most of the units from the earlier incarnations (orcs & riftforged orcs; KoM & Rhordia; AD & ratkin slaves), other theme lists lost much of their indivuality (Basileans & Brothermark; FoN & OotGL), while some generally kept units but play style changed (Dwarfs & free dwarfs; elves & sylvan kin).
Looking at how these combined number compared from 2025 does show more consistency with some armies, but even more stark changes with others.
Orcs (5) and RFO (8) between them equated to 6.4% of 2025 list - 8.8% this year.
KoM (5)/Rhordia (2) 3.4% v 6.9%
FoN (3)/OotGL (5) 3.9% v 7.5%
AD (11)/ratkin slaves 1) 5.9% v 1.9%
Basileans (9)/Brothermark (3) 5.9% v 1.3%
2 Likes
Agreed. It makes an apples to apples comparison hard. The main takeaway is that we’re not seeing more consolidation, in general, with 4E compared to 3E. Within factions, though, builds are more similar than they were previously.
Those units now bring more Unit Strength and considerably more attacks.
Well, first of all the US of hordes was increased to 4 and it is not depending from points, so cheaper armies like Goblin and Ratkin will have more than others.
And second - every character and warmachine is having it now, warlords are even having US2. Isn’t that what you would expect?
And given the changes to armybuilding, units probably have become cheaper (Core units are often cheap) and you take more - and less models with US1 or none.
Increased attacks is interesting. Large Infantry not being Ogres normally lost attacks, but given that many (large) cavalry units gained 2 attacks and some elite units like Ironguard too, might be more important.
Although that is possibly slightly countered by Combat infantry dropping in US (regiments over 100pts were US3, compared to US2 for <100pts)
“About 25% of UK COK lists contain four or more copies of the same exact unit and formation size.”
That’s pretty depressing. I really dislike spam, even if it is core units of troops. I’d just slap a [2] on everything and be done with it.
2 Likes
I had no repeats - doing my bit! 
Ronnie mentioned that they were looking at making some (potentially large) changes to list building, including a specific mention of blanket (n) limits on units. I tend to agree that a limit would be good, but I’d prefer maybe a (4) limit on a type of unit. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there is the issue of two battalions making it possible to take (4) of things designed to really be (2). I think TOs limiting to one battalion or reducing points to 2000 (to make another battalion a genuine difficult choice) would solve this.
4 Likes
1 battalion max, [2] as standard on everything. Honestly, after 10+ years of KoW, I’m just really bored of people spamming stuff. If it means that certain armies no longer work, then re-design them to work properly. If an army needs 2 battalions or four of one particular unit to function, then the design of the army is wrong.
1 Like
I generally agree with your intent here, and it sounds like (from Ronnie’s speech and talking with him at clash) that is what they are going to try to achieve with arrogance, which is going to be much more of an update for everyone and everything rather than just an update for one army. Apparently all armies will get full command orders, list building is being (effectively) revamped. The book will be more rules balancing focussed and less lore.
2 Likes
We can but hope.
1 Like
Quick analysis: UK Clash of Kings 2026 Recap: Northern Alliance Sweeps the Top, Orcs Stay Ordinary, and Unit Strength Still Matters – Data & Dice
For all the talk about balance in 4E, did anyone have NA-cum-Varangur dominating UK COK? And even with Orcs being played all over the place (and tons of ink on Fanatics complaining about how OP they are), they are . . . exactly average?
5 Likes
What is the problem if people decide to spam the units that is not normally taken?
One should be careful here så they dont make unnecessary restrictions. Balancing the units with costs/stats/traits/synergies can in many cases be a better option.
Peronally I tend to like armies that pick a lane and lean into it, rather than just taking one of each unit.
3 Likes
I suggested two of each rather than one of each, but nonetheless, I‘m just really not a fan of skew lists. Don‘t get me wrong, the last thing I want is for peoples armies to be invalidated. Mantic removed my entire army from the game, so I totally appreciate the concern. It‘s just, looking through the dwarf lists, I don’t believe everyone decided that four regiments of Ironguard happens to fit their own personal fluffy theme perfectly.
It doesn’t matter though, this is all purely academic, as this is not something I think they’ll ever do anyway. I think you’re safe! 
Are you the owner of the blog, or just sharing it?
The top 10 listed on the article are the 10 list with the best win rate, not the top 10 placings at the tournament. Seems strange.
They’re the top 10 based on calculated elo. I used to include a disclaimer each time but occasionally forget. It’s a simple way to standardize performance without getting into soft scores, attrition, tournament points, etc.
1 Like
A bit light on data analytics and a bit heavier on my wargaming philosophy with some personal history mixed in–
4 Likes
Thanks for this. Very insightful. I usually understand very little math and statistics, but it is great to see it used on my favorite hobby, and I think there is a lot to be learned from your take on how to approach the numbers.
2 Likes