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.

Kruleboyz Analysis

Win Rate: 44% (Rank: 22nd)
Average Elo: 441.1 (Rank: 8th)
Popularity: 462 Games (Rank: 18th)

Kruleboyz finish this battlescroll at 44%, placing them just outside the healthy band. What makes this story worse is the high average Elo of their player base. They’re not being dragged down by newer or inexperienced players. Strong players are choosing Kruleboyz, and still struggling to win.

Unlike some other low win rate factions, Kruleboyz do not have internal balance. Usage is relatively concentrated around the Swampcalla, Killaboss on Great-Gnashtoof, Monsta-Killaz, Gutrippaz and Boltboyz.

One interesting point though is the win rate without including Man-skewers, at 59% over 94 games it would seem some players have discovered a melee build which works more efficiently under the current handbook.

But GW seem to be focused more on Skumdrekk and Gobsprakk with 20 point reductions on each. If I had my business hat on, they perhaps found that the expensive Gobsprakk models sales were dwindling. But it could be more reflective of his use in lists and allows players to fit in a smidge more.

With an average Elo ranking of 8th, Kruleboyz players are clearly capable. Yet the faction sits near the bottom of the win rate table. That gap suggests the army asks more of its players than it gives back.

Unless players begin ditching shooting builds, Kruleboyz will continue to struggle in the next battlescroll.

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.