if hammer had no stuns I wouldnt mind.

if hammer had no stuns I wouldnt mind.

in Warrior

Posted by: Epic.3950

Epic.3950

Honestly I wouldnt lol. If I could get the same effects as unsuspecting foe (100% chance to crit in my case on earthshaker) and the subsequent attack had a 100% chance to crit I wouldnt give a good god kitten if it was a stun at all. I dont even care about BB for god sake! Does anyone else feel like hammer just assumes the role of the only decent AOE burst damage weapon we have and it just happened to have control as well?

if hammer had no stuns I wouldnt mind.

in Warrior

Posted by: Larynx.2453

Larynx.2453

100B does not qualify as AoE burst? If you bring hammer for the burst then you play hammer wrong.

if hammer had no stuns I wouldnt mind.

in Warrior

Posted by: Nickthemoonwolf.1485

Nickthemoonwolf.1485

CC is the only reason people use hammer in WvW. You take away the stuns and you completely change the warrior meta. You will effectively kill the hammer. Stop trying to reason with the QQers with such ridiculous things.

Lunar Fighter
Tarnished Coast, Hammer guy of [NOPE]

if hammer had no stuns I wouldnt mind.

in Warrior

Posted by: Loading.4503

Loading.4503

How bout just a trai to make your burst skills crit 100% like hidden killer? I can see all the kill shots now

if hammer had no stuns I wouldnt mind.

in Warrior

Posted by: SpecterMAT.7306

SpecterMAT.7306

Remove stun from hammer and etc?
Okay. I’m fine with it.

But also remove every of these skills too:
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Stun

Then i would accept the hammer stun removing.
Thank you.