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.

Ossiarch Bonereapers Analysis

Win Rate: 49% (Rank: 14th)
Average Elo: 437.4 (Rank: 12th)
Popularity: 587 Games (Rank: 12th)

Ossiarch Bonereapers finish this battlescroll just below the midpoint at 49%, placing them close to the target for a balanced faction. They are played at a healthy rate, by a broadly average-skilled player base, and produce consistent results.

By the standards we’ve applied throughout this series, Ossiarch Bonereapers are a well-balanced faction.

The most commonly used warscrolls sit between 47–52% when included, with very little variance when excluded. There are no standout units pushing lists well above the faction average, and no single warscroll that competitive players can lean on to gain an advantage.

Centrepieces such as Katakros and the various Mortisan heroes all perform close to the faction mean. This indicates a faction whose success comes from decent play and positioning, not from any one unit doing more work.

Importantly, this also means warscroll usage is wide. Competitive players are not converging on a single optimal build, and casual players are not being punished for thematic choices.

It’s tempting to read the absence of a dominant Ossiarch archetype as a weakness. But it’s actually a sign of healthy internal balance.

When a faction has a superior build, competitive players flock to it and abandon alternatives. That narrows the effective roster and often forces heavy balance corrections later.

Ossiarch Bonereapers avoid that problem entirely. Their flat performance curve ensures that multiple list types remain viable.

GW’s points changes for Ossiarch Bonereapers are minor, and appear to be deliberate.

Small reductions to units such as the Mortisan Boneshaper, Vokmortian, Mortek Crawler, and Morghast Harbingers target units that sit at the lower end of the faction’s performance.

Just as importantly, GW avoided introducing any major points increases or aggressive buffs. That restraint preserves the faction’s internal balance and avoids tipping players into one way to play the army.

Large characters like Nagash and Arkhan remain underwhelming in competitive play, but this is a design trade-off. These units offer narrative weight without dominating tournaments.

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.