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.

Kharadron Overlords Analysis

Win Rate: 54% (Rank: 8th)
Average Elo: 448.3 (Rank: 6th)
Popularity: 639 Games (Rank 10th)

Kharadron Overlords are yet another faction that are just inside the healthy band at 54%, with solid popularity and an above-average player base. KO are strong, but not running away with it and that framing is important when assessing GW’s points changes.

Several of the warscroll increases make sense when looking at their performance.

The Vongrim Harpoon Crew with +10 stands out as the clearest data-backed increase. Lists including them sit at 59%, while lists without drop to 47%. That is a meaningful swing, on good volume, and comfortably outside the healthy range.

The Codewright with +10 is also a reasonable adjustment. With a 56% win rate when included and with widespread use, this feels like a small efficiency tax.

The Grundstok Thunderers also have a +10 increase, and this is more debatable. Their win rates when included sit at 53%, while lists without them actually perform slightly better. This suggests Thunderers are more of a choice than a power piece, and the points hike could feel undeserved.

Elsewhere, most commonly used units cluster tightly around 52–54%, both with and without inclusion. This indicates strong internal balance.

For the first time in the series, I’m going to look at the Battle Formations too. +10 increase to Pioneers & Scavengers is perhaps warranted. At 57% it sists just outside the healthy range and has enough games to give a decent sample.

The increase to Endrineers Guild Expeditionary Force is harder to justify other than an attempt to encourage players to use other battle formations. With 51% win rate it sits comfortably inside the healthy range and on a large volume of games.

GW appear to have prioritised formations with higher usage. That’s defensible if the goal is stability.

If KO rise above the healthy band in future, it is more likely to be driven by formation choices rather than warscroll abuse.

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.