Category Archives: Tournaments

4th Edition, Age of Sigmar, Competitive, Death, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Meta Analysis, Ossiarch Bonereapers, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Ossiarch Bonereapers

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.

Ossiarch Bonereapers Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Games Workshop Use Their Data

Games Workshop have previously stated that their balance decisions are informed by results from the last 60 days of events, primarily drawn from Best Coast Pairings. This dataset includes both one and two day events.

This approach gives GW a very broad view of the game, capturing everything from highly competitive play to more casual, experimental lists. From an accessibility and participation standpoint this does makes sense. It reflects how the majority of players experience the game.

How Woehammer Uses Its Data

For this series, Woehammer takes a narrower approach.

Our analysis is based exclusively on two-day events (typically five-round tournaments), drawn from multiple platforms, including:

  • Best Coast Pairings
  • Milarki
  • Ecksen
  • Mini Head Quarters
  • Longshanks
  • Tabletop Herald
  • Championshub.app

These events are competitions where lists are refined, and player skill is more consistent across the field.

Why Focus on GT Data?

One day events and casual tournaments introduce significant variance when used for balance decisions:

  • Fewer rounds mean higher randomness
  • Greater spread in player skill
  • More thematic or experimental lists
  • Less pressure to optimise for the meta

Two-day events, by contrast, are where balance issues reliably surface. Strong warscrolls and strong combinations tend to rise quickly, while weaker options are filtered. If a unit or build is genuinely pushing an army beyond a healthy win rate, it will almost always show up here first.

For that reason, Woehammer prioritises signal over volume. The dataset is smaller, but the conclusions are clearer.

How to Read These Articles

Each faction articles follows the same structure:

  • Overall faction performance (win rate, average Elo, Popularity)
  • Warscroll performance when included vs excluded
  • A review of the points changes and whether they’re supported by our data
  • Pointing out any changes that appear questionable or which we think may be missing.

Throughout the series, we use a 45–55% win-rate band as a reference point for healthy balance. Units or factions consistently operating outside this range are flagged as potential problems in either direction.

Final Note

This analysis isn’t intended to dismiss the value of casual play. Instead, it offers a view on how the game may behave being pushed in its competitive format.

Games Workshop looks wide, aiming to satisfy all players in the hobby, whether thats with pick-up games, or at competitive events.

Woehammer looks deeper at the competitive side, believing that balance for casual play can fall from balancing the game for competitive play.

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

December Battlescroll Review: Skaven

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.

Skaven Analysis

Win Rate: 50% (Rank: 13th)
Average Elo: 420.2 (Rank: 22nd)
Popularity: 1181 Games (Rank 2nd)

Skaven land exactly where you’d want them, at 50%. Given their massive popularity and fairly low Elo this is another well balanced army.

GW have actually made me chuckle here. They’ve sent a message to the Skaven players over the Deathmaster – “You can’t be trusted!”. With a +10 to their points even though they’re at 50% win rate both when included and excluded GW are saying ‘Stop doing that!’ This is GW slapping those players on the wrist. Fair.

Why no points increase for Plague Monks? 60% when included, 46% without and a large sample size. Prime candidate right? Because they are not the problem unit. They are cheap bodies and buff recipients. GW learned that taxing core infantry in Skaven tends to punish players and collapse list types. Instead GW chose to adjust the units around the Plague Monks.

Some of you may also be expecting a whole host of points drops for those underperformers at the bottom of the list. But if GW started handing out -10s everwhere you’d get the risk of broken lists and GW wouldn’t be able to track the cause of the break. Instead GW made selective reductions with Stormfiends, Stormvermin, Thanquol and Vizzik. There are all either centrepieces that should feel better or units that players actually want to use.

Units like Globadiers, Hell Pit Abomination, Plagueclaw, Grey Seer on foot and Warlock Engineer are all underperforming, but touching them all at once would be reckless.

This way GW leave the core intact but try and discourage those abusive lists. They’re also trying to encourage those much loved centrepieces.

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, Ironjawz, Meta Analysis, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Ironjawz

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.

Ironjawz Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Games Workshop Use Their Data

Games Workshop have previously stated that their balance decisions are informed by results from the last 60 days of events, primarily drawn from Best Coast Pairings. This dataset includes both one and two day events.

This approach gives GW a very broad view of the game, capturing everything from highly competitive play to more casual, experimental lists. From an accessibility and participation standpoint this does makes sense. It reflects how the majority of players experience the game.

How Woehammer Uses Its Data

For this series, Woehammer takes a narrower approach.

Our analysis is based exclusively on two-day events (typically five-round tournaments), drawn from multiple platforms, including:

  • Best Coast Pairings
  • Milarki
  • Ecksen
  • Mini Head Quarters
  • Longshanks
  • Tabletop Herald
  • Championshub.app

These events are competitions where lists are refined, and player skill is more consistent across the field.

Why Focus on GT Data?

One day events and casual tournaments introduce significant variance when used for balance decisions:

  • Fewer rounds mean higher randomness
  • Greater spread in player skill
  • More thematic or experimental lists
  • Less pressure to optimise for the meta

Two-day events, by contrast, are where balance issues reliably surface. Strong warscrolls and strong combinations tend to rise quickly, while weaker options are filtered. If a unit or build is genuinely pushing an army beyond a healthy win rate, it will almost always show up here first.

For that reason, Woehammer prioritises signal over volume. The dataset is smaller, but the conclusions are clearer.

How to Read These Articles

Each faction articles follows the same structure:

  • Overall faction performance (win rate, average Elo, Popularity)
  • Warscroll performance when included vs excluded
  • A review of the points changes and whether they’re supported by our data
  • Pointing out any changes that appear questionable or which we think may be missing.

Throughout the series, we use a 45–55% win-rate band as a reference point for healthy balance. Units or factions consistently operating outside this range are flagged as potential problems in either direction.

Final Note

This analysis isn’t intended to dismiss the value of casual play. Instead, it offers a view on how the game may behave being pushed in its competitive format.

Games Workshop looks wide, aiming to satisfy all players in the hobby, whether thats with pick-up games, or at competitive events.

Woehammer looks deeper at the competitive side, believing that balance for casual play can fall from balancing the game for competitive play.

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

December Battlescroll Review: Sylvaneth

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.

Sylvaneth Analysis

Win Rate: 52% (Rank: 11th)
Average Elo: 441.0 (Rank: 9th)
Popularity: 720 Games (Rank 8th)

Sylvaneth end the battlescroll firmly in the healthy band at 52% with good popularity and a slightly above average player skill base.

Looking at the warscroll data, Sylvaneth are on of the most tightly clustered factions in the game. The most commonly used units sit between 52-54% when included, and there are no widespread spikes into the 60%+ danger zone. Even high performers like the Spiterider Lancers (63%) and Spite-Revenant (59%) appear in relatively low numbers.

Major centrepieces like Alarielle, Belthanos and Durthu all site within the healthy band, showing that success with Sylvaneth is coming from play rather than efficiency of warscrolls.

Most notably the adjustments are points drops and not increases. All of the units were already playable. Their win rates sir around the faction average making the reductions an attempt to encourage variation in most cases.

It’s worth noting that points reductions apply to the baseline versions of Revenant Seekers and Drycha Hamadreth, rather than their Scourge of Ghyran counterparts, which are responsible for much of the higher performance currently seen in lists. These drops are defensible. However, in practice, they reduce the cost of entry into already well-established Sylvaneth builds.

This, along with the points drops to the Seed of Rebirth and Spellsinger can only improve the faction, particularly as several other factions have been reined in elsewhere.

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, Cities of Sigmar, Competitive, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Games Workshop, Meta Analysis, Order, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Cities of Sigmar

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.

Cities of Sigmar Analysis

Win Rate: 53% (Rank: 10th)
Average Elo: 462.7 (Rank: 1st)
Popularity: 408 Games (Rank 20th)

Cities of Sigmar finish this battlescroll inside the healthy 45–55% band at 53%. On the surface, that looks unremarkable. But when digging a little deeper the picture changes. Cities are being piloted by the strongest average player base in the game, while remaining relatively unpopular.

This is a faction winning because very good players are making the most of its warscroll pool.

Cities’ best-performing warscrolls skew heavily toward combined-arms pressure, rather than raw damage alone.

Units such as the Steam Tank Commander, Fusil-Major on Ogor Warhulk, Freeguild Command Corps, and Callis and Toll all sit comfortably above the faction average when included, in several cases pushing lists toward the top end of the healthy band or beyond.

The Fusil-Major on Ogor Warhulk stands out in particular. With a strong win rate when included and a dramatic drop-off when excluded, the +10 points increase here is entirely justified.

Similarly, the +20 to Callis and Toll is defensible. While their win rate isn’t outrageous, their consistency across successful builds makes them a clear efficiency piece rather than a flavour choice.

GW have applied a relatively broad spread of +10 point increases across its artillery and support heroes.

Individually, most of these increases are understandable. But altogether they risk overlapping too much on the same list type. Cities’ success comes from stacking good warscrolls together. Taxing all of those at once may have a larger effect than GW intend, especially considering the faction was already within the healthy band and not very popular. 

This is a case where the faction’s skilled player base may be doing some of the work that points changes are trying to correct.

One of the things that stands out in the data is just how many warscrolls sit well below 45% when included.

A large number of warscrolls, in particularly older Freeguild infantry, Duardin legacy units, and several Dark Elf options drag list performance down. They are units that struggle to justify their inclusion at all, especially with constant rumours of their imminent demise.

GW have largely left these untouched, which is understandable given sample sizes, but it reinforces the idea that Cities’ success comes from a narrow set of optimised builds, not from internal balance.

Cities of Sigmar are balanced at the faction level, but unbalanced internally. Their 53% win rate is heavily influenced by a skilled player base selecting from a small number of efficient warscrolls.

GW’s points changes largely target the right units, but the number of increases risks overcorrecting a faction that was generally behaving itself.

If Cities fall back slightly in the next cycle, that will likely reflect points pressure stacking up.

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, Gloomspite Gitz, Meta Analysis, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Gloomspite Gitz

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.

Gloomspite Gitz Analysis

Win Rate: 53% (Rank: 9th)
Average Elo: 440.7 (Rank: 10th)
Popularity: 959 Games (Rank 5th)

Gloomspite Gitz sit inside the healthy 45–55% band at 53%, while also being one of the most popular factions in the game. However, digging into the warscroll data reveals that performance is due to a small amount of efficient units, rather than internal strength.

GW’s response here is more complicated than simple points nudges.

A number of warscrolls stand well clear of the healthy band:

  • Sunsteala Wheelas – 60%
  • Spore-splatta Fanatics – 61%
  • Snarlboss variants – mid to high 60s
  • Doom Diver Catapult – 61%
  • Snarlpack Cavalry – 61%

These are where Gitz lists have been finding their edge, despite the faction’s overall win rate.

The +10 point increases across several of these units are justified.

The most important change in this update isn’t just the +10 points to Sunsteala Wheelas, it’s the Careening Destruction rewrite.

Now, they are required to be in combat first and this changes how the unit works. It forces Sunstealas to expose themselves before delivering their damage. This is an example of GW recognising that points alone wouldn’t solve the problem. However, this could be a touch too much and it’s entirely likely that players may be put off them altogether.

The +10 to Boingrot Bounderz feels off. A win rate of 52% when included compared to 54% without on a unit that is not increasing the factions performance. Boingrots appear to stabilise lists rather than push them upwards.

Several small points drops target underperforming units, particularly within the Troggoth and Squig ranges. These changes should help vary builds without increasing the faction’s win rate.

That said, the Spiderfang units remains in a poor state. With win rates in the 25–30% range, even on low sample sizes, are not healthy. While GW may be cautious here, the data suggests that Spiderfang need more than gentle nudges to become viable.

Gloomspite Gitz are balanced at the faction level, but unbalanced internally. A small number of high-efficiency units have been doing the work, and GW have identified that some of these problems required rules changes and not just points increases.

The Sunsteala Wheelas update was needed but may be a touch heavy handed. But it shows GW are willing to address why something is strong, not just how often it appears.

Not every points change is perfectly aligned with our data, but this update should reduce the extremes.

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, Kharadron Overlords, Meta Analysis, Order, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Kharadron Overlords

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.

Kharadron Overlords Analysis

Win Rate: 54% (Rank: 8th)
Average Elo: 448.3 (Rank: 6th)
Popularity: 639 Games (Rank 10th)

Kharadron Overlords are yet another faction that are just inside the healthy band at 54%, with solid popularity and an above-average player base. KO are strong, but not running away with it and that framing is important when assessing GW’s points changes.

Several of the warscroll increases make sense when looking at their performance.

The Vongrim Harpoon Crew with +10 stands out as the clearest data-backed increase. Lists including them sit at 59%, while lists without drop to 47%. That is a meaningful swing, on good volume, and comfortably outside the healthy range.

The Codewright with +10 is also a reasonable adjustment. With a 56% win rate when included and with widespread use, this feels like a small efficiency tax.

The Grundstok Thunderers also have a +10 increase, and this is more debatable. Their win rates when included sit at 53%, while lists without them actually perform slightly better. This suggests Thunderers are more of a choice than a power piece, and the points hike could feel undeserved.

Elsewhere, most commonly used units cluster tightly around 52–54%, both with and without inclusion. This indicates strong internal balance.

For the first time in the series, I’m going to look at the Battle Formations too. +10 increase to Pioneers & Scavengers is perhaps warranted. At 57% it sists just outside the healthy range and has enough games to give a decent sample.

The increase to Endrineers Guild Expeditionary Force is harder to justify other than an attempt to encourage players to use other battle formations. With 51% win rate it sits comfortably inside the healthy range and on a large volume of games.

GW appear to have prioritised formations with higher usage. That’s defensible if the goal is stability.

If KO rise above the healthy band in future, it is more likely to be driven by formation choices rather than warscroll abuse.

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, Death, Faction Focus, Fantasy, Flesh-Eater Courts, Games Workshop, Meta Analysis, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Flesh-eater Courts

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.

Flesh-eater Courts Analysis

Win Rate: 54% (Rank: 7th)
Average Elo: 445.7 (Rank: 7th)
Popularity: 989 Games (Rank 3rd)

Flesh-eater Courts sit just inside the healthy 45–55% band at 54%, and do so while being one of the most played factions in the game. That combination matters. High win rate and high popularity usually exposes balance problems very quickly, yet FEC have remained relatively stable.

The standout performers in the table are clearly the Royal Monster builds.

Both the Abhorrant Ghoul King on Royal Zombie Dragon and on Royal Terrorgheist push list win rates well above the faction average. In both cases, inclusion matches with results in the 57–64% range, while lists without them drop sharply, in some cases into the mid-40s.

These are the kind of warscrolls that GW should be reacting to: a small number of centre piece units that significantly raise the army’s ceiling.

The +10 point increases to these Ghoul King variants are therefore entirely justified. They don’t remove the archetype, but they do tax the most efficient versions of it.

Away from the big monsters, Flesh-eater Courts are well balanced.

Core units such as Cryptguard, Crypt Horrors, Crypt Ghouls, and common support heroes all cluster tightly around 53–55%, both when included and excluded. There is very little evidence of any “trap” units, and very few auto-includes that massively skew performance.

Even Ushoran, often assumed to be the army’s primary engine, sits at 52% when included and 57% without. That’s a unit appearing in lists that are already playing a slightly different game.

Most of the points reductions target units sitting below the healthy band.

Heroes such as Abhorrant Archregent, Varghulf Courtier, Crypt Infernal Courtier, and Abhorrant Gorewarden all show win rates in the low- to mid-40s when included, with much stronger faction performance when they are absent. These are the kind of units that benefit from small reductions, interesting tools that struggle to justify their cost.

The -10 adjustments here feel measured. They encourage variety without risking a sudden spike in power.

Flesh-eater Courts are in a very healthy place and sit within the target win-rate band, performing well across a large player base, and showing strong internal balance. GW’s points changes mostly reinforce that by taxing the monster builds that push performance upwards, while encouraging underused support options.

Despite what many may think, this is not a faction that needed major intervention, and GW appear to have recognised that.

If anything, Flesh-eater Courts are a good benchmark for what a well-balanced and popular army should look like.

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, Fyreslayers, Games Workshop, Meta Analysis, Order, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Fyreslayers

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.

Fyreslayers Analysis

Win Rate: 54% (Rank: 6th)
Average Elo: 462.6 (Rank: 2nd)
Popularity: 484 Games (Rank 16th)

Fyreslayers sit at 54%, which keeps them inside the healthy 45–55% band, but they do so while being piloted by an elite player base. With the second-highest average Elo in the dataset, this faction rewards experience and reps. Fyreslayers aren’t dominating the field, but they are strong in the right hands.

With these point adjustments I think GW are trying to stop the best Fyreslayers lists from creeping upwards.

The clearest target is the Auric Runesmiter on Magmadroth who has had its points increased by 20. During this last battlescroll it had a 56% win rate over 238 games, and lists without is were worse off at 52%. This meant it was pushing lists towards the top end of the healthy band, +20 here feels justifiable.

The Auric Runeson with +10 is defensible. This isn’t due to raw win rate but rather an efficiency tax on a support unit. It’s not outrageous, but neither is it strongly demanded by the numbers.

You may be wondering why the Vulkite Berzerkers with Fyresteel Weapons didn’t cop a points hike? At first glance, 57% looks like a prime candidate for it. But GW will be looking a context, not just the stats. They likely left them alone because the swing between with and without win rates is 4%. GW appear to leave points increases for units pushing 60%+ or units that stack with other offenders to break lists. Vulkite Berzerkers with Fyresteel Weapons aren’t quite there. They are a battleline unit and I think GW are cautious about point adjustments on core infantry unless its unavoidable. Hitting them would be a tax for playing Fyreslayers.

Where it perhaps becomes questionable in the Vulkyn Flameseeker receiving a 10 point hike. With a 50% win rate when included against a 56% without, this would be a unit that would actually need a points reduction in my eyes. Including them correlates with having slightly worse results. A points increase here risks discouraging internal variety and pushing players into the best-performing options.

A 10 point increase on the Auric Runesmiter feels hard to justify, and perhaps is another one where it would have benefited from a points drop. If GW are seeing something in their broader dataset, it isn’t showing up in two day GT results.

Auric Runefather, Grimwrath Berzerker appear to have received a points decrease to perhaps encourage their use a little more.

I do want to talk about the Battlesmith though. Lists featuring this unit have a 64% win rate as opposed to 53% without. This is a large uplift, although I admit it is on a more modest sample size. If the Fyreslayers continue to push the win rates in the couple of months this is the kind of warscroll that could become a problem. Not adjusting is defensible due to the number of games, but it’s one to keep an eye on.

Overall GW are making aggressive and inconsistent adjustments with Fyreslayers according to our data. The Runesmiter on Magmadroth increase is sensible and some of the smaller hero taxes are understandable but the Flameseeker and Runesmiter on foot increase run against what the GT data suggests and risks reducing the internal balance rather than improving it.

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, Lumineth Realm-Lords, Meta Analysis, Order, Peter Holland, Tournaments, Warscroll Statistics

December Battlescroll Review: Lumineth Realm-lords

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.

Lumineth Realm-lords Analysis

Win Rate: 55% (Rank: 5th)
Average Elo: 454.5 (Rank: 4th)
Popularity: 477 Games (Rank 17th)

Lumineth finish this cycle right on the upper edge of the healthy band at 55%. They are not running away with events, but they are consistently strong and piloted by above-average players.

A handful of warscrolls push Lumineth above the 55% ceiling when included; Ellania and Ellathor (59% with, 49% without), Alarith Stoneguard (59% with, 54% without). GW’s points increases are justified in these cases. Though this should have been extended to Sevireth as well (60% with, 51% without). Is 10 points enough? Possibly not.

Again we’re seeing points deductions on units which don’t see too much play, specifically Hurakan Windchargers and the Vanari Lord Regent. While points reductions for both Scinari Calligrave will be welcome, the extremely poor win rate suggests there’s a fundamental flaw with this warscroll.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen points increased on the Bladelords, Scinari Enlightener which both have meaningful sample sizes and prove effective in the lists they are included in. Seeing a 10 point rise on both of these could have been prudent.

Expect to see Lumineth within the top 6 factions in the next couple of months.

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.