Category Archives: Age of Sigmar

Age of Sigmar, Competitive, Data Literacy, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Meta Analysis, Peter Holland, Sci-Fi, The Old World, Tournaments, Warhammer 40k

Woehammer Data Literacy: Early Win Rates

Leave a comment

This article is part of the Woehammer Data Literacy series, which focuses on how to read statistics.

Our aim is to explain what the data can reasonably tell us and what it’s limits are. We publish results once they become interesting, but we interpret them only when there is enough evidence to trust them. Statistics are a tool.

If you’re looking for instant tier lists, this series won’t give you those. If you want a clearer understanding of how to interpret the numbers, you’re in the right place.

Why Early Win Rates Lie

There is a familiar story to every Age of Sigmar rules cycle. A new battletome, or battlescroll lands and a handful of events are played. Someone posts a win rate chart and within days, the community has reached a conclusion. Sometimes within hours.

“This army is broken.”
“The army is dead.”
“GW didn’t test this.”

There’s nothing more certain, it’s like death and taxes, because the data never deserves it.

This article is the first in a new Woehammer Data Literacy series. It isn’t about defending or attacking any particular faction (Though I know you want to). It’s about how we read statistics, not just in Age of Sigmar, but for Old World and 40k as well. And how easily we mistake those early signals for final answers.

Because the biggest problem with data isn’t necessarily misinformation. It’s impatience.

Comfort in Numbers

Early win rates are enticing because they feel objective. A percentage carries an authority that anecdotes never seem to do. “Lumineth is on 60%” sounds strong, while “I keep losing with this army” does not.

The trouble is that early data is always fragile. At the start of a battlescroll, sample sizes are small. The meta hasn’t had time to adapt, and counter-play often hasn’t been identified yet. A single weekend of results can take up the picture. But that doesn’t make the data wrong, it just makes it provisional.

Pilot Effect

There is a pattern that appears again and again in early wargame statistics, the pilot effect.

A strong player picks up an army and they bring a sharp or unusual list. They go 5–0, sometimes the format of the event favours them, it could be a team events, an online TTS tournament, or a friendly local meta. Suddenly, the faction’s win rate spikes and screenshots circulate. Everyone then starts jumping to conclusions.

Nothing out of the ordinary happened. This is simply how small datasets behave. A single strong pilot can bend win rates out of shape, not because the army is dominant, but because skill differences matter when only a few games have been played.

The mistake comes later when those results are treated as universally replicable. Copying a list does not copy the decisions the player made when they went 5-0. Early win rates don’t really tell us whether we are seeing a powerful army, a powerful player, or a perfect matchup of factions on the way. They just flatten everything into one number and then we over-interpret it.

What a 5–0 Does to a Small Dataset

It’s easier to see the issue with an example.
Imagine a faction has 37 wins out of 68 games, thats a win rate of 54.4%. Now imagine the next event happens, and a strong player takes that faction and goes 5–0.

The new record becomes: 42 wins out of 73 games, the win rate jumps to around 57.5%.

No rules changed or points changed and the army didn’t get better overnight. One player simply added five wins to a small pool, and the conversation shifted from “healthy” to “dominant” in a single weekend.

Reverse the situation and the effect is just as dramatic. A new player goes 0–5, and the same faction suddenly looks mediocre or struggling. The only difference is a single player.

It’s not a flaw with the statistics; they’re just behaving as they should.

Decent Sample Sizes Aren’t Immune

Now take a sample size that feels more reassuring.

Imagine a faction with 80 wins out of 166 games, a win rate of 48.2%.

This looks stable. Then our strong player comes along (let’s call them Warson Chitlock), they add another 5 wins to that total. 85 wins out of 171 games, the win rate rises to 49.7%.

The shift is smaller than before, but it still has the potential to be meaningful. That could be enough to move a faction from “slightly underperforming” to “Ok”. Once again, nothing really changed, only five more wins were added.

This is what scale does. Larger sample sizes don’t remove variance, but they dampen it. Until you reach a point where individual players can’t move a number in a significant way, early conclusions are risky.

New Armies Don’t Start on a Level Playingfield

Another thing early data struggles to capture is who’s playing the faction.
Brand new armies like Helsmiths of Hashut attract new players to the hobby, and they attract people experimenting with unfamiliar mechanics. That often means a lower than average level of experience in the early days, combined with perhaps handful of very skilled players pushing the at the other end of the win rate scale. This results in polarisation.
Some players dominate and feel like the stats back their performance up. Others may struggle and feel as though the stats are telling them their experience doesn’t count. Both experiences are real and early win rates compress that complexity into a single percentage.

This is why early battlescroll debates so often feel like people talking past each other. They are describing different views of the same picture.

When Data Becomes a Conversation Killer

The most damaging misuse of early win rates is dismissal. Using a small, early dataset to tell someone that their frustration with a faction isn’t valid doesn’t help them improve and doesn’t help explain why they’re losing games. It simply shuts a conversation down.

Win rates are useful for spotting long term balance problems and identifying outliers. They are far less useful for explaining why someone went 1–4 at their local event, or why a new army feels punishing to learn.

A Note From Woehammer

It would be wrong of me to write an article like this without talking about our own history.

In the past, Woehammer has also published early win rates. We were keen to report what was happening in the first couple of weeks of a battlescroll. My intention was never to mislead, but I recognise now how easily those early numbers can be mis-interpreted.

I’ve learnt from my experiences, and while I still publish early results, I flag them clearly. On our win rate charts, factions that I feel do not yet have enough data are highlighted in bold italics to signal that the data set is small and should be treated with caution.

For me, a meaningful data set on a faction does not really begin until there are at least 100 GT games in the database. That’s a judgement call, based on watching early spikes. Below that threshold, it can still vary and pilot skill will skew results and conclusions. Sometimes the honest answer is simply: we don’t know yet.

A Calmer Take

Early win rates are not lies, but they are incomplete and easy to misinterpret. They should prompt questions, not panic and we should have more patience rather than treating them as a certainty.

Don’t let a two weeks worth of data convince you that the verdict is already in.

4th Edition, Age of Sigmar, Beasts of chaos, Big Waaagh!, Blades of Khorne, Chaos, Cities of Sigmar, Competitive, Daughters of Khaine, Death, Destruction, Disciples of Tzeentch, Fantasy, Flesh-Eater Courts, Fyreslayers, Games Workshop, Gloomspite Gitz, Hedonites of Slaanesh, Helsmiths of Hashut, Idoneth Deepkin, Ironjawz, Kharadron Overlords, Kruleboyz, Lumineth Realm-Lords, Maggotkin of Nurgle, Meta Analysis, Nighthaunt, Ogor Mawtribes, Order, Orruk Warclans, Ossiarch Bonereapers, Peter Holland, Seraphon, Skaventide, Slaves to Darkness, Sons of Behemat, Soulblight Gravelords, Stormcast Eternals, Sylvaneth, Tournaments

What is Meta Volatility?

Leave a comment

When players talk about Volatility, what they usually mean is visibility. A faction appears at the top of the results tables, dominates discussions for a few weeks, and is immediately declared “the problem”.

But genuine volatility isn’t about where a faction sits at a single point in time. It’s about the sustained rises or falls that persist for that faction.

Once you start looking at it that way, a large part of the perceived instability soon disappears.

For example, take Lumineth Realm-lords. They are often talked about, spells, builds and interactions. And yet their win rate barely moves. Across the last three battlescrolls,  December 2024, April, June and September they sit stubbornly in the mid 50s. (April: 54%, June: 55%, September: 55%). They exist, reliably, near the top of the pack, but importantly, within the healthy range. Flesh-eater Courts show a similar pattern (April: 52%, June: 51%, September: 54%). Minor drift, but nothing resembling real instability. 

These factions aren’t volatile, they’re stable but with very loud community conversations around them.

True volatility does exist, but it’s far rarer and much more informative when it does appear. Blades of Khorne are a textbook example. In April they sat comfortably around the 50% mark. But with the release of their new battletome, specific builds, particularly the much discussed Gorechosen Champions, were posting extraordinary results, pushing the faction well beyond what most players would consider healthy. But GW soon corrected this and the faction dropped sharply, landing well below its peak.

Kruleboyz (April: 50%, June: 58%, September: 44%) followed a similar arc. A moment of success and then a clear fall. Short-term dominance was identified and brought back into line. When players point to these swings to prove instability, they’re actually pointing at one of the healthiest signs a competitive game can show, that outliers are temporary.

More interesting than the spikes, are the factions that never leave. Disciples of Tzeentch (April: 51%, June: 50%, September: 57%) barely register in community panic circles, yet quietly climb from average performance to sitting firmly among the top factions.

The most dangerous armies in any meta aren’t the ones that spike and attract attention, they’re the ones that survive corrections.  They are harder to tech against and show more reliable tournament success.

What the data shows is a meta that is elastic. Strong factions often remain strong without becoming oppressive. Weak factions don’t magically solve themselves. Most of the movement happens in the middle, where small advantages are increased by player behaviour  and the local metas. What players interpret as instability is usually just reaction time and social media moving faster than the data.

The lesson is simple. Chasing hot lists and sudden spikes may reward the short term, but will leave players with redundant models in the long term. How many players now have a ton of Pyregheist?

The AoS Meta favours armies with depth and resilience. The game isn’t unstable, players just panic quicker than the numbers can change.

The next time someone says the meta is broken, it may be worth asking how many battlescrolls they checked before deciding that.

Age of Sigmar, Blades of Khorne, Chaos, Chat with the Champs, Daughters of Khaine, Death, Disciples of Tzeentch, Fantasy, Flesh-Eater Courts, Games Workshop, Hedonites of Slaanesh, Kharadron Overlords, Maggotkin of Nurgle, Nighthaunt, Order, Peter Holland, Sylvaneth, Tournaments

Chat with the Champs: Predicting the Meta

Leave a comment

To kick off 2026, we opened the doors on the Woehammer Discord for a Chat with the Champs. An informed discussion with experienced tournament players about where the Age of Sigmar meta might be heading next.

The intention isn’t to predict exact win rates, instead, it was to talk about what the players are feeling and which factions look  well placed into the new Battlescroll.

What follows is more coherent than it first appeared.

“I have a sneaky suspicion that wound density is about to become a whole lot more important.“

Roland Rivera

Wound Density Over Precision

Some of the strongest discussion was around whether the game is rewarding armies that can simply stay on the table.

Several players pointed out that many current top lists operate on thin margins. Lose one key unit, sometimes even a few models, and the list collapses. But armies that can put large amounts of wounds on the table, particularly with decent saves or wards, are better placed to absorb losses while still maintaining board control.

“A lot of the top builds are operating on razor thin margins. Armies that can put 130+ health with good saves or wards on the table will be able to weather losses and maintain board position.”

Roland Rivera

It’s not that damage output no longer matters, but that durability and redundancy are possibly becoming more important than efficiency. Lists that rely on perfect trades are fragile against chip damage and mortal wounds.

That fed into which factions players expect to rise.

Shooting Isn’t Dead

There was some debate around whether shooting is about to become more common again.

It was generally agreed that Kharadron Overlords have been hit hard, but several players noted that changes to obscuring may encourage targeted shooting elsewhere, particularly in Stormcast Eternals lists featuring Longstrikes.

The difference here is that nobody is expecting a return to shooting dominanting the games. Instead, it’s for targeted shooting supporting armies that can fight for space.

“Shooting units have been included little by little. Obscuring has changed, and it’s easier now to justify bringing more shooting than before.”

Luis Mendoza

Sylvaneth: Finally Turning Up?

Sylvaneth came up often and mostly positively.

There was agreement that Sylvaneth are now going to be where many players expected them to be earlier in the season. With strong internal balance and being able to pressure multiple parts of the board have made them competitive.

Some players commented that they’ve taken Sylvaneth into events with only a little practice and still felt comfortable.

“My last GT I played Sylvaneth with only one practice game, and I don’t regret the decision. Really fun.”

Luis Mendoza

Generally we think that Sylvaneth are making a real push, and a good example of a faction that benefits from flexibility.

Nighthaunt

Nighthaunt were a point of uncertainty.

While not many expect them to continue at their previous heights, there was no agreement that they’ve fallen off a cliff. Instead, the view is that Nighthaunt have been nudged back into the middle of the pack.

Some remain unconvinced they’ll still contend, while others are waiting to see whether a new list type emerges. Either way, the sense was that Nighthaunt are now suitably back im the middle of the field again.

Khorne, Powerful in the Right Hands

Many players felt Khorne is ready to rise, with several suggesting they’ll easily make the top ten. Recent buffs were mostly seen as meaningful.


That said, there was an important point, Khorne isn’t easy.

“The trouble with Khorne is they’re not easy to play. Experienced players can make them sing, but newer players…”

Peter Holland

Several players noted that while experienced players can do well with Khorne, newer players may struggle. That usually means a faction can get strong results without meta chasers running to them. This often allows a faction to fly under the radar longer than expected.

Tzeentch and Slaanesh

As well as Sylvaneth, there were a few other factions that had quietly avoided the gaze of GW.

Disciples of Tzeentch were described as largely untouched by the changes, with the opinion that their win rate may climb. Flesh-eater Courts were also mentioned as quietly well positioned thanks to their warscrolls and ability to pressure opponents.

Hedonites of Slaanesh have some optimism. While competitive, several players had concerns that they may struggle in a meta leaning towards chip damage and particularly if Nurgle becomes prevalent.

Nurgle

Speaking of Nurgle, almost everyone agreed that it was too early to be certain.

The new rules look strong, the mechanics appear decent in practice, and there’s a sense that Nurgle could be a problem. But, everything hinges on points. Several players stressed that without seeing costs and unit sizes, any prediction is just pure guess work.

“New Nurgle has the potential to be extremely strong, but it’s points dependent, and we likely won’t see much of the new stuff until the next battlescroll.”

Popliteal

That said, if Nurgle lands cheaply and brings large, resilient units to the table, many expect it to put pressure on factions reliant on recursion and healing.

Final Thoughts

If there’s a single takeaway from this chat, it’s that the next phase of the meta looks about discovering which factions are structurally sound.

Armies with large wound pools and multiple viable builds, as well as redundancy are the ones players are quietly backing.

Whether the data will show that remains to be seen, but the instincts of experienced players are a good indicator of where the meta is really heading.

4th Edition, Age of Sigmar, Competitive, Destruction, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Kruleboyz, Meta Analysis, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

What Happens When You Build Kruleboyz Without Boltboyz?

Leave a comment

There is an assumption so deeply ingrained into Kruleboyz list building that it rarely gets questioned. If you’re playing Kruleboyz,  you’re playing Man-Skewer Boltboyz.

They are treated like an auto-include in nearly every Kruleboyz list. How many can you fit in, how do you protect them and how do you get the most out of their shooting?

But when we stepped back and asked a much simpler question, what actually happens when you don’t take them? The answer was uncomfortable, and clear.

The Data

Across 462 recorded GT level Kruleboyz games, Man-Skewer Boltboyz appeared in 371 of them. That alone tells you how relied upon they are.

But those lists posted a win rate of just 40%.

The remaining 91 games, where Boltboyz weren’t included, tells a very different story. Those lists won 59% of their games.
That’s not a marginal difference.

At this point, the question stops being “are Boltboyz good?” and becomes “are Kruleboyz good when they’re not built around them?”

Data Without Boltboyz

Once Boltboyz were removed from the dataset, a pattern emerged almost immediately.

The units that performed best were not exotic picks, but the core units of the army.

Gutrippaz: 61% win rate across 51 games
Monsta-killaz: 60% across 66 games.
Swampcalla Shamans: 57% across 76 games
Gobsprakk jumps to 67%, albeit in a smaller sample of 15 games.

Even support pieces like the Marshcrawla Sloggoth gets away with 58%. This all strengthens the idea that this version of Kruleboyz may have legs.

Boltboyz aren’t bad. The issue is what they force the army to become. Taking them encourages castle builds and investment in screens. That also means predictable deployment and a narrow game plan.

Without them, Kruleboyz revert to something far more aligned with their ruleset: an army that wants to sit on objectives, while having units that can flank and ambush.

Boltboyz aren’t useless, just that building around them may be actively holding the faction back.

So, what’s the list?

Starting from the idea of “what does Kruleboyz look like without Boltboyz?” this is where the numbers led me.

The backbone of the list is simply reinforced Gutrippaz units doing the work of occupying space, supported by the Shaman. While Monsta-killaz provide the damage with Crit Mortals.

Gobsprakk features in the list not as a disruptive presence. He’s here to bully the enemies spellcasters.

The Scourge of Ghyran Killaboss on Great Gnashtoof is included to assassinate any unprotected heroes and harass the flanks of the enemy. I’ve given him the Slippery Skumbag to help with this.

Remember though, this is an experiment. This is data led and matches up the list with units that win more often when Boltboyz aren’t included. But the data can’t tell you about local metas or player skill.

If you’re playing Kruleboyz and struggling, the answer might be stepping back and asking whether you’re trying to force the army to play a game it doesn’t actually win.

The most interesting part of this exercise isn’t the list itself. It’s the implication that Kruleboyz have been competitive all along in the way most players didn’t expect.

Age of Sigmar, Beasts of chaos, Blades of Khorne, Cities of Sigmar, Competitive, Daughters of Khaine, Disciples of Tzeentch, Fantasy, Flesh-Eater Courts, Fyreslayers, Games Workshop, Gloomspite Gitz, Hedonites of Slaanesh, Helsmiths of Hashut, Idoneth Deepkin, Ironjawz, Kharadron Overlords, Kruleboyz, Lumineth Realm-Lords, Maggotkin of Nurgle, Meta Analysis, Nighthaunt, Ogor Mawtribes, Orruk Warclans, Ossiarch Bonereapers, Seraphon, Skaventide, Slaves to Darkness, Sons of Behemat, Soulblight Gravelords, Stormcast Eternals, Sylvaneth, Tournaments

New Battlescroll Strength: Woehammer Estimates

Leave a comment

Over the last couple of weeks you’ll have seen we’ve published an article for each faction discussing the recent points adjustments.

We normally don’t do tier lists and we won’t be now. Instead ill be giving each faction an estimation of where I think their win rate will be in the next Battlescroll. I’ve gone in order of how they finished within our win rates under the last battlescroll.

So let’s jump in.

Nighthaunt

Nighthaunt we’re hit heavily by points increaaesand a nerf to the Pyregheist ability.

September Battlescroll: 57%

Estimated Win rate: 51-53%

Disciples of Tzeentch

Disciples escaped the update pretty much unscathed with 10 point increases to Tzaangors and the Thaumaturge. I don’t expect them to shift too much and I think they’ll remain one of the top factions.

September Battlescroll: 57%

Estimated Win Rate: 55-57%

Daughters of Khaine

Daughters quietly went about their business last battlescroll sitting in 3rd with 57% but as one of the most unrepresented. They’ve been piloted by high elo players so far, I expect if we see more players flock to them that win rate will drop despite very little changes to their points. But if their player base remains the same I can’t see them moving too much.

September Battlescroll: 57%

Estimated Win Rate: 54-56%

Hedonites of Slaanesh

Hedonites had the second lowest popularity but one of the highest Elos and I don’t expect that to change. Hedonites appeared to benefit from the latest points update rather than being hindered,so I expect we’ll see them near the top of the pile.

September Battlescroll: 56%

Estimated Win Rate: 55-57%

Lumineth Realm-lords

This was another faction who managed to walk away pretty from the points update. With only minor points increases and a number of points drops I expect we’ll see Lumineth in the top 6 factions.

September Battlescroll: 55%

Estimated Win Rate: 55-57%

Fyreslayers

This one will have hurt our angry little friends. With points increases across their pool, GW have decided they don’t like them that much. But perhaps there’s some hope on the horizon with the upcoming Battletome.

September Battlescroll: 54%

Estimated Win Rate: 49-51%

Flesh-eater Courts

Since writing the article linked, I’ve actually changed my mind slightly. I think FEC should have probably had a little more in the way of points increases. I believe as a result we’ll see them slightly improve.

September Battlescroll: 54%

Estimated Win Rate: 54-56%

Kharadron Overlords

Kharadron Overlords had some targeted points increases and I don’t think these will pull the most oppressive faction down in the ratings slightly.

September Battlescroll: 54%

Estimated Win Rate: 48-50%

Gloomspite Gitz

Sun Stealas suffered quite heavily in this round of points hand outs and as a result many players will feel their lists are now unplayable. That’s perhaps a tad dramatic.

September Battlescroll: 53%

Estimated Win Rate: 50-52%

Cities of Sigmar

Cities were fairly balanced before the adjustments and the points changes were perhaps a little too wide for them to maintain their current position.

September Battlescroll: 53%

Estimated Win Rate: 48-50%

Sylvaneth

I believe Sylvaneth benefitted quite a bit from this Battlescroll and along with thr nerfs to factions above them, I think we’ll see them place quite highly.

September Battlescroll: 52%

Estimated Win Rate: 55-57%

Ironjawz

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.

September Battlescroll: 52%

Estimated Win Rate: 48-50%

Skaven

GW quite rightly punished the abuse of the Deathmaster lists, but otherwise they were  given points reductions elsewhere. I expect to see them climb.

September Battlescroll: 50%

Estimated Win Rate: 50-52%

Ossiarch Bonereapers

A few points reductions may improve the Bonereapers slightly, but don’t expect them to be lighting up the tables.

September Battlescroll: 49%

Estimated Win Rate: 49-51%

Stormcast Eternals

Very little changes here. I think that perhaps the largest effect on the win rate will be the player base and whether mix of experienced and newer players changes.

September Battlescroll: 49%

Estimated Win Rate: 48-50%

Maggotkin of Nurgle

A new slate for Nurgle with the new Battletome. First impressions appear to be decent enough.

September Battlescroll: 49%

Estimated Win Rate: 49-51%

Soulblight Gravelords

Soulblight are well balanced at 48%, and GW recognised that with light point reductions mainly on under achievers. Expect the same.

September Battlescroll: 48%

Estimated Win Rate: 48-50%

Idoneth Deepkin

Idoneth recieved a number of points cuts to underperforming units. But these will have very little affect on the rates of the faction.

September Battlescroll: 47%

Estimated Win Rate: 47-49%

Seraphon

The majority of their warscrolls sit at 44-49% and players are certainly experimenting. The points changes are reasonable, and they may claw a few percentiles up the rankings.

September Battlescroll: 46%

Estimated Win Rate: 46-48%

Blades of Khorne

From a balance perspective, Blades of Khorne actually sit in a very “honest” place. They are inside the healthy band and reward good decision making.

The downside is, compared to factions sitting closer to 50–52%, Khorne players often need to do more for the same results.

September Battlescroll: 45%

Estimated Win Rate: 47-49%

Slaves to Darkness

GW are attempting to encourage more Legion of the First Prince and tempting them away from the usual Varanguard lists. I doubt whether they’ve managed this.

September Battlescroll: 45%

Estimated Win Rate: 45-47%

Kruleboyz

Points reductions for the named characters will help a little. But shooting lists are not working out for Kruleboyz. A switch to melee builds may help.

September Battlescroll: 44%

Estimated Win Rate: 43-45%

Ogor Mawtribes

Ogors got a number of points drops. It may help them, but overall they’re performing poorly (apart from players like @carsonwhitlock123). Perhaps they’ll improve.

September Battlescroll: 43%

Estimated Win Rate: 45-47%

Sons of Behemat

Mega Gargants do not dominate the table the way they used to in 3rd edition. They don’t score efficiently and they struggle against a lot of factions who can bring a high volume of mortal wounds to the board. They’re easy to pin or even ignore.

September Battlescroll: 43%

Estimated Win Rate: 42-44%

Helsmiths of Hashut

Helsmiths are complicated to play and there are no easy win warscrolls. Players are learning the faction as they go. The win rates will improve, but not by too much.

September Battlescroll: 41%

Estimated Win Rate: 44-46%

Age of Sigmar, Fantasy, Games Workshop, HIstorical, Historics, Hobby Update, Napoleonic, News, Peter Holland, Sci-Fi, Speculative Fiction

Woehammer Awards 2025: The Winners

Leave a comment

2025 has been a year. One of many years. There have in fact been 25 of those years so far this century.

Models have been painted, games have been played and tournaments have been attended?

Over the past couple of weeks the Woehammer community voted on the best the worst things to come out of Warhammer in 2025. These weren’t carefully defined categories. We deliberately left them open to interpretation.

Best Warscroll

The first award is for the best Age of Sigmar warscroll this year. How people interpreted this was entirely up to them,  perhaps they thought it had the best rules or perhaps they thought it was the best looking model. There were two warscrolls that received an equal number of votes for the win:

Iridan the Witness
SoG Screaming Bell

Worst Warscroll

There were a lot of nominations for this category. Quite a few seemed to have a warscroll that had let them down at some point or another. Others perhaps loved the model and thought the rules didn’t live up to the model.

The winner is….

Arachnarok Spider with Spiderfang Warparty

Best Rules Change

There’s always a lot of people moaning about battlescrolls when they drop and how GW did their army dirty. So we asked everyone what GW had got right. The result was pretty unanimous….

Gorechosen Champions

The moment Gorechosen got nerfed, everyone breathed a sigh of relief.

Worst Rules Change

We couldn’t have the best rules change and then not have the worst. This one was also pretty unanimous…..

Yup, it’s Obscuring on Objectives.

Most Fair/Balanced Faction

We asked people to vote on the most balanced and fair faction this year and the results were surprisingly clear!

The winner is….

The Most Oppressive Faction

Everyone has that one faction they hate playing against. It seemed this year that the hate was mostly for….

I was convinced this one was going to be won by Nighthaunt but they only got a third of the votes that KO managed to get.

Best Non-Warhammer Tabletop Game

There were only a few nominations for this category, and it was fairly close with a single vote splitting the winner out….

Malifaux narrowly beat my personal choice of Silver Bayonet.

Best Warhammer Blog or Website

This was incredibly close, and was contested really by only two sites. The runner up is the much loved Goonhammer. While the winner is everyone’s favourite Destruction loving website…

PlasticCraic are awesome and I always have a good chuckle when reading their ramblings over there. I also recommend signing up to their Patreon, you’ll get access to their awesome Discord as well.

Best YouTube Channel

This one had quite a few nominations, but one clear winner did start to emerge. But first I wanted to shout out our runner-up, A Skaven Plays. Raybear who’s a member of our Discord and a top, top player records all his TTS games and hosts them here.

But in first place with a substantial number votes is…

Season of War have been going a few years now, and it’s easy to see after watching their videos why they’re so popular.

Best Warhammer Video Game

This wasn’t even close and we could have given this award out the second we dreamt it up. The winner is….

Best Warhammer Novel

What wasn’t an easy one to predict was the Best Warhammer Novel. Everyone had a favourite book and the votes were spread evenly across all the nominations. The winner is….

I’m ashamed to say that I’ve not actually read this one. But it is now on my list!

Best Non-Warhammer Book

Unlike the Warhammer Novel, this one had a clear winner, and possibly an obvious one with us being predominantly fantasy wargamers…..

Most Helpful Discord Member

We wanted to do an award where we recognised the members of the Discord that were always happy to help others. There were three nominations here and each one of them is a legend. The runners up were, Madigan Mason and Fabien Barbusse, both are always helping out on our Rules Lawyers channel, but the winner is…

Vallis

Vallus has been a member of our Discord since 2023 and is often the first one to help clear up any rules questions. Thanks Vallis!!!

Best Painted

The best painted was for any miniature that had been posted in our Discord Display Cabinet channel this year. The nominations were:

Daemon Prince by PadawaNoob
Bloab Rotspawned by Fazer
Darkoath by Funky Monkey
Glottkin by H1ppahd00d
Alarielle by JSPayne90
Prince Vhordrai by Rose of Winter

There were so many more as well that would have been worthy of nominations, but our winner, by 1 vote is…..

Rose of Winter has done an incredible job, we’re looking forward to seeing more from them next year.

WoePoints Winner 2025

Our final category is for the winner of our WoePoints in 2025. For those unsure what WoePoints is, its a points system where you gain points for buying models and reduce points for painting or selling models. The aim being to be as negative as you can by the end of the year.

Our 2025 winner is…..

Poots

4th Edition, Age of Sigmar, Chaos, Competitive, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Helsmiths of Hashut, Meta Analysis, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Helsmiths of Hashut

Leave a comment

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.

Helsmiths of Hashut Analysis

Win Rate: 41% (Rank: 25th)
Average Elo: 398.7 (Rank: 25th)
Popularity: 179 Games (Rank: 25th)

At face value, Helsmiths of Hashut are the weakest performing faction in the game. However, unlike most armies at the bottom of the rankings, context matters more here than almost anywhere else.

This is a brand-new faction, released only in the last couple of months. Many players are still assembling and painting models, which naturally means they don’t feature as much yet and skews the sample toward early adopters and hobby-first players rather than hardened tournament grinders.

Not only are Helsmiths new, with Daemonic Power Points (DPP), they are not simple to play. DPP adds another layer of management to the game for Helsmiths players that can be hard to track and remember for newer players.

That matters because the early data can be affected by players learning the faction at events and suboptimal builds being tested on the fly.

Whats notable though is that no one warscroll appears to be pushing the win rate up. There’s nothing that allows the players a little forgiveness when playing which explains the early results.

But it does perhaps suggest that given time and experience the faction may begin to pay off for players who persist with them.

GWs points reductions are in line with these thoughts. They are reluctant (understandably) to make any massive changes to the faction in its infancy and would perhaps like to see what the results say once more players pick them up.

I expect we’ll see Helsmiths improve to just within the healthy band.

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.

4th Edition, Age of Sigmar, Competitive, Destruction, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Meta Analysis, Peter Holland, Sons of Behemat, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Sons of Behemat

1 Comment

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.

Sons of Behemat Analysis

Win Rate: 43% (Rank: 24th)
Average Elo: 422.9 (Rank: 21st)
Popularity: 494 Games (Rank: 15th)

Sons of Behemat close out the Battlescroll with 43% just outside the healthy band.

Regardless of what lists players build, all of the warscrolls sit below the ideal range, with perhaps builds that don’t feature the Kraken-eater getting near 50%.

The core issue is that Mega Gargants do not dominate the table the way they used to in 3rd edition. They don’t score efficiently and they struggle against a lot of factions who can bring a high volume of mortal wounds to the board. They’re easy to pin or even ignore.

There’s not much else to say, and we’ll continue seeing them propping up the tables 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.

4th Edition, Age of Sigmar, Competitive, Destruction, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Meta Analysis, Ogor Mawtribes, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Ogor Mawtribes

2 Comments

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.

Ogor Mawtribes Analysis

Win Rate: 43% (Rank: 23rd)
Average Elo: 412.4 (Rank: 24th)
Popularity: 332 Games (Rank: 22nd)

Ogor Mawtribes finish this battlescroll at 43%, placing them outside the healthy band. With low popularity and one of the lowest average Elos in the game, they struggle both in performance and accessibility.

Looking at warscroll usage, Ogors lack a reliable core package. There is no unit that consistently lifts the faction’s win rate when included.

The few spikes (such as Firebellies or Scraplaunchers) appear in low numbers and cannot be treated as serious indicators. There is no dominant build for competitive players to follow.

Perhaps the part of the data that hurts the most is how poorly Ogor centrepieces perform. Stonehorn variants, Thundertusks, and even Kragnos all sit in the low-40s or below. These are expensive models that should define games, but they struggle to justify their cost and are outperformed by cheaper, more flexible options in other factions. The monsters can’t bully the board and the rest of the army collapses around them.

Points reductions here will do very little.

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.

4th Edition, Age of Sigmar, Competitive, Destruction, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Kruleboyz, Meta Analysis, Orruk Warclans, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Kruleboyz

Leave a comment

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.