Talk:Magehunter's Smash

Hmmm this might hurt Boon prots even more than the actual boon nerf ... but then, so will it hurt MoR users. EDrain anyone? --Xeeron 09:10, 22 September 2006 (CDT)

Unattributed! Give it a <=4 requirement, like Earthshaker. Kamahl 23:16, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
 * What's the point of putting req 4 on it? It's a hammer attack, which requires a hammer anyway. Every time I've seen someone with a hammer in their hands, they've had 12~14 mastery with it Celestial Patch

Nevermind that, this is going to be on every hammer Warrior who even thinks about targeting Dervishes. Arshay Duskbrow 05:40, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

I don't get it... Is this really that much more useful than, say, Devastating Hammer? Yes, Devastating costs 2 more adrenaline, but it causes Weakness (not exceptionally useful) and it's unconditional. I don't really want a knockdown on my bar that stops being useful the moment people drop their Divine Boon maintainence. The conditional aspect really narrows its potential significantly. Ponder this: When Prophecies was the only version of Guild Wars, and top hammer builds ran Hammer Bash instead of Heavy Blow, even when they had Devastating Hammer. Heavy Blow is superior in every way when the conditions are met! However, what if the target weren't weakened? What if you just killed a target and went to your next, with a fully charged knockdown you couldn't use? What if the target got a condition removal at a key time causing your knockdown to fail?

Blessed Light monks that don't run enchantments on themselves are becoming more popular, and more solid non-enchantment monk skills are on their way. Is 2 less adrenaline really going to rate higher than the unconditional aspect? In my opinion, it's not. Merengue 13:01, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

That's what I was thinking. Weak because it's conditional. Yeah, it may have good use against boon prots or dervishes, but if you have to go beat on something else, it becomes worthless sometimes. IMO, this should have a 1/2 second activation, or a can't be blocked or evaded added to it.--GTPoompt 03:37, 15 October 2006 (CDT)