drkrash

Hey, guys. I have a 1-day local tournament (to make up for NOVA's cancellation ;( ). This is the list I'm bringing. It has been my tournament list for awhile and generally gets solid results (when I remember to play it right!), but I just thought I'd submit here to see if anyone had thoughts. I'll anticipate the most likely suggestion: I know a lot of people drop a Bloodthirster to add Blood Warriors and Gore Pilgrims, especially to win "drop wars." Locally, I actually do OK with 7 drops. And, frankly, I just find 4 Thirsters too much fun to play with! Here's the list: Allegiance: KhorneLeadersBloodthirster of Insensate Rage (270)- General- Command Trait: Mage EaterBloodthirster of Unfettered Fury (270)- Artefact: The Crimson CrownWrath of Khorne Bloodthirster (300)Skarbrand (380)Slaughterpriest (100)- Blood Blessing: Killing FrenzyBloodsecrator (120)- Artefact: Skullshard MantleBattleline5 x Flesh Hounds (100)10 x Bloodreavers (70)- Meatripper Axes10 x Bloodreavers (70)- Meatripper AxesUnits5 x Wrathmongers (140)BattalionsTyrants of Blood (140)Endless Spells / Terrain / CPsHexgorger Skulls (40)Total: 2000 / 2000Extra Command Points: 1Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 112

Just tried it now and there was no captcha page. I suspect there was something there that they addressed. Thanks all.

This morning when I tried to go there, there was a very plain page with a captcha request. My son also had this. Does anyone know if this is legit? It looks pretty suspect. Thanks.

I just ran a combined Dark Feast/Gore Pilgrim Flayed list this weekend. I love how much potential the Reavers have (I could get them to 5 attacks each) and I love the fluff.... ...but they just suck. If you're lucky, and all your bubbles are right, you might get your 10 guys to roll 40-50 dice. That will generate maybe 8 damage, which is cool for 70-point unit. And then they're dead. And if you don't watch your positioning when determining pile in and attack order, they may die before ever attacking. So I agree with Grimrock: they're great screens and blood tithe. But don't think of them as an actual weapon.

Always a bloodthirster. Or 2. Or 3. Or 4. More seriously, bloodthirsters are great, though a single one will probably just be a big target. Two is honestly better. But that will dilute your mortal options, so try these guys out first. Check out Gore Pilgrims and Dark Feast. Some demons for summoning is good, but you can probably get away with just 5 flesh hounds to start. Learn to use Blood Tithe for other tricks (though I need to take my own advice on this more often).

As for taking on OBR, I find a buffed Skarbrand indispensable for taking out Mortek Guard. For the Crawler, I use a flying Thirster to jump the lines. Remember, once you are within 6" of it, it can't fire anymore. @Brother MayhemWhy no Bloodsecrator? Have it and the Wrathmongers close to Skarbrand for 3 attacks with Carnage.

Yeah, that's a doable start and that's a fair price for sure. I prefer playing daemons, but you'll be able to do some solid mortal lists with those guys.

IME, I haven't had to deal with drop-wars. In our local club, 8-10 drops is pretty normal, and even the last tournament I went to before pandemic, I brought 7 drops and that was fewer than 4 of my 5 opponents. Having 2 drops is not a good thing when you have to set up your whole army without knowing what your opponent is going to do.

My Bloodlords list has 2 priests and no bloodsecrator. It can work. The utility of prayers goes a really long way. I returned to using a Bloodsecrator to boost Reapers even further and remembered why people generally consider him an auto-take. As for the "no Pilgrims" range, I don't actually have too many problems with that. I generally clump the Thirsters together. Usually, that's fine. I did just suffer a loss this weekend against KO that would have gone better if the Thirsters split up more. But even then, I would have kept the secrator as close as possible to the one I needed to do the most damage. (Unfortunately, it wasn't Skarbrand. My friend -victimized so enough by Skar before - made sure to shoot him off the board in the 1st round.) tl;dr: I think you can do alright with both set-ups, but if one of your 4 is Skarbrand, strongly consider the Bloodsecrator.

"Better" against a shooting list is probably accurate, but... If you don't get to go first (and I often don't against focused shooting lists), you're still dead. Thirsters are way too squishy. If you do get to go first, you're still subject to a lot of die rolls. Plus, a smart shooter will set up outside your threat range. But yeah, I'll concede that it's slightly better against shooting.

It's not. Don't get me wrong; it doesn't stink and it's so much fun to see your opponent sweat as 5 Thirsters bear down on them. The CA is better with Fury and WoK than Rage. The problem is that the 5 Thirsters + Tyrants + minimum battle line costs 1700. The remaining 300 points should be spent on a priest and secrator, leaving 80 for what? Maybe a judgment or more Reavers? It's a playable list for sure, but it can be taken apart too easily with nothing for backup. If you want Skarbrand on the list, minimum cost jumps to 1810, meaning a secrator (1930) and more Reavers (2000). Basically the same problem. But your "monster mash" should be about damage output, right? I run Reapers/Tyrants/Skarbrand, + secrator + wrathmongers. As long as screen him, I spend the 1st round getting Skarbrand into position, usually to the biggest, scariest opposing unit (preferably a blob). On Round 2, I charge in (if I go first) or hope to be within 6" of the enemy and within 16" of the Fury Thirster (if I go second). Then I spend the command point to have him attack twice. All the Thirsters go at once and he goes last. 3 dice with Carnage on a 1+ means a guaranteed 24 Mortals. Then I do it again for another guaranteed 24 Mortals. 48 Mortals on top of what my other 3 Thirsters are doing at the same time. That's not an auto-win, but it is a promise that your opponent will need to re-configure his whole strategy (and ****** about how broken Skarbrand is). Baleful Lords is fun and I like using it, but in terms of damage output, it's still not better.

I ran Bloodlords at tournaments for almost a year, using Tyrants and 4 Thirsters including Skarbrand. It was loads of fun but didn't win nearly enough. The biggest problem? If my opponent knew that taking out the right Thirster stopped the "attack first" thing, that guy was dead. Then I was left with "just" Tyrants. I switched to Tyrants and Reapers a few months ago and quickly became feared locally. I'm still attacking all at once, but now buffed Skarbrand attacks twice at the end. Furthermore, the anti-magic abilities of Reapers are better than the anti-hero abilities of Bloodlords. I still like to play Bloodlords, but Reapers is better for Tyrants of Blood. If you really want attack first, there's an artefact that gives you a 4+ chance to attack first. Use it with Reapers and have (half) your cake and eat it too. As for Slaughterpriests and Bloodsecrators, you obviously need both. Two years ago, I ran 2 secrators to cover the board, but it was an inefficient use of points. But priests give unbind and dispel, have potentially 3 prayers each (including a judgment) that can't be messed with, and have arguably our best ranged attack in the whole army (near an altar: 75% chance to do d6 Mortal within 16").

I spent a long time leading with BTs in the front just to watch them die prematurely. Now I just put a thin line of Reavers in front of them until they're ready to fly over the line and Tyrants of Blood everything in reach. You just need to remember to make a hole for Skar to walk through. I ran Bloodlords for a long time and first strike is a lot of fun and people hate it. However, I'm now running Reapers and the damage output with Skar is just so much greater *and* I can still have some quasi-"attack first" capability with the Unfettered Fury. But to be honest, I usually don't bother. Even if it's not my turn, I can usually endure one attack to have all the Thirsters go at once. But that won't work against some armies. I have no advice against shooting armies. Prepare to lose, hope you get some good hits in, and better luck next game.

Hey, everyone. I'm looking for some advice. I apologize in advance that this will probably run long. I also want to say that I'm not new to AoS; I've been playing for 4 years, competing in tournaments for almost 3, and played Khorne exclusively until only a few months ago. Yet I'm clearly no good at this game at the competitive level. I'm playing a daemon army. In my local scene, I generally do pretty well; I'm in the top 3 of our club of about 10 - though I rarely beat the other 2 in the top 3! However, when I go out to tournaments (about 3 per year), I do poorly. The list I've been using has 4 Thirsters: Skar, WoK, and 2 Rage. The rest is 2 priests, 5 puppies, 5 wrathmongers, 2x10 reavers, and Wrath Axe. I'm running Bloodlords. My general strategy is to usually let my opponent go first, move up slowly in Round 1, and try to arrange it so all 4 Thirsters are engaged in Round 2 so they can attack first and all at once. Sometimes it works beautifully, but sometimes I get in my own way or get clogged by scenery or get distracted by what I should be killing. If an opponent knows the Bloodlords, my general gets targeted and the cool trick of attacking first is gone and then squishy Thirsters die. After running this list for about 8 months and in 3 tournaments, I grew frustrated and thought I should do what every other daemon player seems to do: run Reapers. So I re-tooled the list: switched one Rage for a Fury Thirster, ditched a priest, gained a Bloodsecrator, and switched out the Axe for the Skulls. I've only used the list twice in casual games (against my best local opponents). I lost both times because it seems the "rhythm" of Reapers is totally different than Bloodlords...AND I think I'm missing something critical in the precision use of Khorne in general. My more specific questions: 1) How do you best manage the interplay between the Reapers CA, the Fury CA, and Tyrants' battalion ability? If a Thirster is going to attack twice, he has to attack last in the Tyrant chain. Or if 2 Thirsters are going to attack twice, they can't be in the Tyrant chain. If one or more are going to pile in 6, they can't use the Tyrant chain, which is restricted to 3". I can't figure out the ideal way to synergize these abilities...to the point that I wonder if Tyrants is worth the 120 points. Is it really just, "these are your tools; there's no perfect way to talk tactics in the abstract"? Is there a "best practice" here? Or is Tyrants not necessary and I should those points on more screens? Which leads me to... 2) With my Bloodlords, I used no screening on the Thirsters. As I said above, I moderated when to make my move and then went straight to smashmouth play (and hoped for the best with the dice). The Reapers' tricks, which seem to require a lot more finesse, also seem to *need* screens to work. I could use the reavers and puppies for that...but then I have nothing to guard back objectives against mobile or teleporting armies. Is it better to leave the back alone and hope to kill enough to worry about that problem later? Does the need for screening trump back guards? I don't seem to have an issue with list construction or knowing and using the capabilities of my units. My problem seems to be in setup and movement. Any advice or insight you could offer would be warmly appreciated.

Are Meeting Engagements a *kind* of Pitched Battle? Or are they just *like* a Pitched Battle? There was a Sword & Steele batrep where Naomi used Baleful Lords in a Meeting Engagement to use 3 Bloodthirsters (normally you can only have 2). I wondered what people's thoughts on this were...since I have a Meeting Engagement tournament coming up...

Furthermore, in most Meeting Engagement battleplans, Skarbrand *is* on the board in Round 1. He appears at the end of your 1st turn. So I think he wanders on, quickly sizes up the scene, and gets pissed off!

I have a question about Khorne in a meeting engagement. If Skarbrand is part of the main body, and thus comes in at the end of turn 1, is he already charged up for round 2? He did not attack in Round 1, after all, and I can't think of any other precedent that would answer this. EDIT: I'm pretty sure this is right, re-reading the rule, and playing it at the table.

I'm not sure what the official rule is, but I have played it this way. I was tabled, summoned a unit from the altar, scored some more tithe, was tabled again, summoned another unit, and was finally tabled a third time Still lost.

Though there are very few 2k builds that can fit 5 BTs and be anything more than a fun ride.

Of course, if they *weren't* slaughterhosts, then I want to try 5 BTs in Bloodlords. It might work as an Alpha-Strike (that would then kinda fall apart right afterwards).

I kind of assumed they were. What else would they be? They don't seem to be battalions.

I agree that Blood Tithe needs an update. I am especially frustrated that all our effects empty out the pool, while I can't think of any other pool that has a similar mechanic. It may not be a perfect fix, but it would go a long way to just say we can keep leftover points, even if we were restricted to a single effect per Hero Phase (or a single summon per move phase). IME, I regularly go from 1, maybe 2, Blood Tithe straight up to 5 or 6. So while I'm considering those important 3 and 4 point spends, the blood continues to flow, and then I'm suddenly faced with either "losing" Blood Tithe or holding out for a big effect or a big summon.

I’m looking for help tweaking my Tyrants list. Presently, I’m running Skarbrand, WoK, and 2 Rage. My other leaders are 2 priests. I’m running Bloodlords for the “attack first, attack with all” trick. It’s a lot of fun, it’s annoying to my opponent, and it helps mitigate initiative loss. But it hasn’t been winning a lot lately. So I’m thinking of switching to the evidently more effective Reapers Slaughterhost (though, to me, it is less interesting). For this, I need a Secrator. My other units are 2 units of 10 Reavers, 5 Wrathmongers, 5 Hounds, and Wrath Axe. Now all my questions: If I put the Secrator in, what do I take out? Do I go with 3 ‘Thirsters or 4? I’m committed to keeping Skarbrand in. If I keep 4, I have to lose a priest for the secrator. This is probably the best option, but I do like the flexibility of Blood Boils as ranged weapons and our prayers are good enough to want two. If I did this, I’d also lose the Wrath Axe and change the Hounds to 10 more Reavers. With the remaining points, I’d add the Hexgorger Skulls instead. If I keep 3, I could keep both priests. If I drop to 3, which do I lose: a Rage thirster or the WoK? If I lose a Rage thirster, I’d have 130 left over. Not sure what to do with that. If I lose the WoK, I’d have 180. I’d add 5 more Wrathmongers and Hexgorger Skulls. But like the WoK’s +2 unbind and its 2 ranged attacks. What do I use for my 2nd artifact? Khartoth the Bloodhunger would give me a chance to get the Bloodlord ability again, albeit only on 4+. The Sword of Judgment would be a decent weapon on the WoK to increase his melee damage to Rage thirster levels. That’s a lot! If you made it this far, thanks in advance for your advice!

I'm considering picking up a 3rd army and I'm trying to decide between FEC and StD. Some relevant background: I'm principally a Khorne player. I have a SCE army, but it's new and I haven't used it much because it is an odd collection of parts. One of the things I like most about Khorne is the flexibility of list building; there is more than one competitive build and even more "fun" builds. I'm thinking of StD because they would obviously complement my Khorne forces. They also look like they have a lot of list-building options of their own. I'm thinking of FEC because I like the fluff and their play style will likely come easy to me as a Khrone player, but I'm concerned that the army is too "small." So, Death players, I ask your help: based on what I've told you, is FEC a good choice for me? Or I should I remain enmeshed in Chaos? TIA.

So are you suggesting that the "winning" effect would be whoever's turn it is *not,* as I noted in my dialogue above?