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.

Ironjawz Analysis

Win Rate: 52% (Rank: 12th)
Average Elo: 431.9 (Rank: 17th)
Popularity: 761 Games (Rank 7th)

Ironjawz finish the battlescroll nicely within the healthy band at 52%, with high popularity and a below average player base (no offense). This is important, as it means its performing well without being propper up by elite players or extreme builds.

I would argue that Ironjawz were perhaps the most balanced at the end of the battlescroll, so what did GW do?

The most commonly used warscrolls sit between 50–53% when included, with very little change to that when excluded. There are no widespread spikes, and no single unit appears to be doing more work.

Even pieces such as Kragnos, Megaboss on Maw-Krusha, and Gordrakk sit comfortably inside the healthy band. These are powerful centrepieces, but they are not dragging the faction upward on their own.

Perhaps most importantly, usage is spread across the book. Gore-gruntas, Brutes, Maw-gruntas, heroes, and support pieces all see meaningful play, and none of them materially distort results. That’s a good sign of internal balance.

However, GW have decided to increase the points on several units. None of these units show win rates or usage that justifies an increase. In most cases, their performance with and without them are very similar.

The explanation could be that Ironjawz are perceived as an army that hit hard and move fast. Winning decisively when things go right. That can feel oppressive, particularly in more casual events. However, when filtered through into 2 day data that normalises into a healthy 52%.

Balancing for ‘feels’ rather than results is understandable, but is also how armies can slowly get pushed down over time.

I will support the -10 to Brute Ragerz though. Our data backs this adjustment. 48% with (still in the healthy band) and 53% without. This unit drags lists downwards when included, and a small reduction is a sensible attempt to encourage variety. The Megaboss on Foot and Scourge of Ghyran Gore-Gruntas follow similar logic.

Overall, Ironjawz were not a problem in GT events. Their win rate, popularity and internal balance all point towards a healthy faction.

The points reductions target genuine underperforming units, which is good. The points increases, however, don’t feel necessary and risk nudging them downwards for reasons not supported by GT results.

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.