There's a reason nearly every time a pro gives an explanation on win more their first example is Bloodlust. Because the narrow situation in which Bloodlust is useful also happens to be a state that Shaman has historically had an extremely easy time closing the game from.

But, I mean, correct me if i am wrong.... but isn't it basically just Bloodlust that enables that closing? It seems a bit disingenuous to Call Bloodlust "Win More" when in reality it is just the "win" part. having a bunch of tokens doesn't inherently win you the game, you need a card like Bloodlust in order to actually capitalize on it. A bunch of tokens don't capitalize on themselves.

It feels like the real reason they say "always Kill totems" is in order to make sure that, in case the opponent is runnign something like bloodlust, thay can't get any value form it. If Bloodlust (or cards like it) didn't exist, there would be no need to kill the totems.