Category Archives: Tournaments

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?

1 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%

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.

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

December Battlescroll Review: Slaves to Darkness

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.

Slaves to Darkness Analysis

Win Rate: 45% (Rank: 21st)
Average Elo: 427.6 (Rank: 20th)
Popularity: 971 Games (Rank: 4th)

Slaves to Darkness finish this battlescroll at 45%, placing them right on the lower end of the healthy band. With very high popularity and a slightly below-average Elo, this is a faction that is widely played but demands a lot from its players.

Slaves to Darkness have one of the largest warscroll pools in the game, and while most of them see play, we see a number of them feature in most of the lists at top tables. Those being Chaos Knight, Varaguard, Chosen, Warriors and Be’lakor.

The most commonly used warscrolls sit between 43–47% when included. Even units such as Archaon, Be’lakor, Varanguard, and Chaos Knights do not push the faction’s results. There are isolated spikes, such as the Centaurion Marshal and Eternus that stand out, but these appear in low numbers and do not affect the competitive meta.

A notable feature of this battlescroll is the attention given to Legion of the First Prince, with several daemon warscrolls receiving significant points reductions.

They suggest GW want to encourage this subfaction. While LotFP has not been dominating so far, GW appear to be attempting to nudge it into relevance through points efficiency.

Whether that turns into competitive success remains to be seen, but it is an attempt to broaden list types away from Varanguard, Knights and Be’lakor.

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, Blades of Khorne, Chaos, Competitive, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Meta Analysis, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Blades of Khorne

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.

Blades of Khorne Analysis

Win Rate: 45% (Rank: 20th)
Average Elo: 433.7 (Rank: 14th)
Popularity: 527 Games (Rank: 13th)

Blades of Khorne close out this battlescroll sitting exactly on the lower boundary of the healthy band at 45%. With an average Elo and popularity, they’re not being propped up by elite players or dragged down by newer ones. This is an honest reflection of their current power level. They’re playable, but hard work.

The most common centrepieces such as Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirsters, Unfettered Fury, and Bloodcrushers sit around the 50–52% mark when included in lists. That’s fine individually, but there’s nothing here that makes up for the faction’s wider inefficiencies. As a result, players have to rely on tight play and correct sequencing.

Most of the points changes are as you would expect, reductions to underperforming units sitting in the low-40% range. These are adjustments aimed at bringing up the poorer performing units.

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.

We may see Khorne creep up towards 47-48% but I would be surprised to see anything more from them.

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, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Meta Analysis, Order, Peter Holland, Seraphon, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Seraphon

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.

Seraphon Analysis

Win Rate: 46% (Rank: 19th)
Average Elo: 429.7 (Rank: 19th)
Popularity: 652 Games (Rank: 9th)

Seraphon finish this battlescroll at 46%, placing them just inside the healthy band.

With above average popularity and the player skill base being lower in Elo than most other factions, the problem, could partly be the skill level of the population where novice players drag down the results of experienced ones.

However, any regular readers of our top 3 will note that Seraphon rarely feature.

Is this a faction being dragged down by inexperience? Or it is simply underperforming?


Unlike some other sub-50% factions, Seraphon do not suffer from a ‘single competitive list’ problem. Instead, they suffer from the opposite.

Looking at warscroll usage, aside from Aggradon Lancers, Seraphon are widely played across their warscrolls. Most core pieces see table time. On paper, this is exactly what we want to see from a healthy faction.

The problem is that this variety does not translate into results. The majority of commonly used warscrolls are between 44–49%, with very few units pushing above that range. Even traditional anchors such as Lord Kroak, Slann Starmaster, Kroxigor, and Hunters of Huanchi sit below 50% win rate when included.

The points changes here are reasonable and time will tell whether they are enough to see Seraphon climb back towards the middle of ideal range.

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, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Idoneth Deepkin, Meta Analysis, Order, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Idoneth Deepkin

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.

Idoneth Deepkin Analysis

Win Rate: 47% (Rank: 18th)
Average Elo: 432.9 (Rank: 15th)
Popularity: 635 Games (Rank: 11th)

Idoneth Deepkin sit on the lower side of the healthy band at 47%, with solid popularity and an average player skill base. Idoneth struggle to convert games despite consistent representation.

But, as always, their win rate only tells part of the story.

Looking at warscroll usage, Idoneth have lists made up of Akhelian Morrsarr Guard, Eidolon of Mathlann (Aspect of the Sea), Akhelian Allopex, and Akhelian Leviadon. That combination appears repeatedly and forms the backbone of most Idoneth lists.

A significant portion of the Idoneth range sees either very low pick rates, or

sub-45% win rates when included.

Namarti builds seem to struggle, despite being one of the main themes of the army. Even with points drops applied to support heroes and Namarti options, they’ll remain unattractive compared to the Akhelian core.

This creates a pattern of competitive players using the same lists. Experimental builds underperform, and internal balance becomes non-existent

The points reductions in this battlescroll appear sensible, targeting lesser used warscrolls without touching the faction’s strongest units. However, much like Soulblight, these changes lower the cost of entry into current meta lists rather than creating new ones.

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.