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.

Gloomspite Gitz Analysis

Win Rate: 53% (Rank: 9th)
Average Elo: 440.7 (Rank: 10th)
Popularity: 959 Games (Rank 5th)

Gloomspite Gitz sit inside the healthy 45–55% band at 53%, while also being one of the most popular factions in the game. However, digging into the warscroll data reveals that performance is due to a small amount of efficient units, rather than internal strength.

GW’s response here is more complicated than simple points nudges.

A number of warscrolls stand well clear of the healthy band:

• Sunsteala Wheelas – 60%
• Spore-splatta Fanatics – 61%
• Snarlboss variants – mid to high 60s
• Doom Diver Catapult – 61%
• Snarlpack Cavalry – 61%

These are where Gitz lists have been finding their edge, despite the faction’s overall win rate.

The +10 point increases across several of these units are justified.

The most important change in this update isn’t just the +10 points to Sunsteala Wheelas, it’s the Careening Destruction rewrite.

Now, they are required to be in combat first and this changes how the unit works. It forces Sunstealas to expose themselves before delivering their damage. This is an example of GW recognising that points alone wouldn’t solve the problem. However, this could be a touch too much and it’s entirely likely that players may be put off them altogether.

The +10 to Boingrot Bounderz feels off. A win rate of 52% when included compared to 54% without on a unit that is not increasing the factions performance. Boingrots appear to stabilise lists rather than push them upwards.

Several small points drops target underperforming units, particularly within the Troggoth and Squig ranges. These changes should help vary builds without increasing the faction’s win rate.

That said, the Spiderfang units remains in a poor state. With win rates in the 25–30% range, even on low sample sizes, are not healthy. While GW may be cautious here, the data suggests that Spiderfang need more than gentle nudges to become viable.

Gloomspite Gitz are balanced at the faction level, but unbalanced internally. A small number of high-efficiency units have been doing the work, and GW have identified that some of these problems required rules changes and not just points increases.

The Sunsteala Wheelas update was needed but may be a touch heavy handed. But it shows GW are willing to address why something is strong, not just how often it appears.

Not every points change is perfectly aligned with our data, but this update should reduce the extremes.

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.