Ok I like you and I hope we will be able to see each other during next worlds :). I've added you on twitter in order to chat if you want ! Your last video was interesting but this one is more because even i'm not 100% aligned with you (and it seems to be normal) you propose a quite innovative way of thinking and I will try for sure your thoughts! I was on the verge to play a bit more Skullreapers with more bloodreavers / wrathmonger and a bloodsecrator. It's a perfect excuse to do so. Thank you !
Funny to see this. I had just arrived at a similar conclusion yesterday re: priests, ending up dropping a priest and adding units of khorne dogs and khorne dog larpers pretty much 100% for battle tactic reasons. Agree on blood throne being junk, but disagree on bloodletters being something you take if you don't take a bloodsecrator. I'd even go so far as to say they're not worth taking *unless* you take a bloodsecrator. The +1 attack when you need it is what takes 20 bloodletters in bloodlords from not getting there from a damage perspective on the key turn it needs to delete something to getting there on the key turn it needs to delete something. It's somewhat inefficient in that the 4+ rally doesn't work obviously, but you can still get use out of it on bloodreavers, khorne dog larpers, etc. And I think without it 20 bloodletters just don't really have the juice to do what a unit like that needs to do to be worth taking. I do think the mortal MSU archetype is stronger overall, but the unfettered fury / bloodletters in bloodlords list is competitive too IMO. You're definitely right about that list being super reliant on keeping the bloodthirster alive, though.
Very interesting take! I have to disagree about the bloodlords and bloodletters though. Pair 2x20 letters with Be'lakor and you have a very strong core that can deal with most things right now
Unfortunately, the units that have risen in the tier list are not because they are better in this meta, but because the units previously in the top tiers have dropped. Also, if you need to think about list composition to achieve battle tactics (when other armies don't need to), then it is obvious that the army is not as competitive
The second sentence is definitely true. if Khorne doesn't stay top-tier, that'll be why. Especially because armies like KO that will get 5 tactics every game without fail can also pick off the stuff you take to get your tactics as Khorne T1, leaving you in a bad place. The big problem with this season IMO is it was a mistake to make tactics so reliant on getting out of your territory and then make 5/12 plans have territories all the way up to the middle.
@@TheLagiacrus1 Didn't say it was. But if those "couple exceptions" have a big advantage, that ends up defining what top-tier competitive means. You can't determine what's competitive without considering the field.
@@assistantref5084 having to construct lists thoughtfully is the way it should be. We shouldn't complain that our army has to do that, if another army doesn't have to do that, *that's* the problem.
@@TheLagiacrus1 I agree completely. The problem is that some armies just get 5 tactics and a GS without really even thinking about it. But the fact is that those armies exist, so when you're assessing which armies are top-tier, that has to be taken into account.
