If anyone is interested in writing it up:

Conjure Hundred Blades can be optional for another warrior (Whirling Axe, another Criplsash, Devhammer, Magehunters, Coward Axe etc something that does big pressures).
Att's for bars are pretty simple -> Cripslash is 12+1+1Sword, 12+1Strength, 3Resto. - Hundred Blades is 12+1+1Sword, 8+1Strength 10Air - Mel's is 12+1+1expertise, 9+1marks, 9+1wilder, 3 prot - VoR is 12+1+3Dom, 10+1fastcast, 8+1Inspir, 2Resto - Lingering is 12+1+1Curses, 12+1Soulre - Prot monk is 12+1+1Prot and 10+1Divine with 8 Tactics or 12+1Divine with 3Shadow/Dom for Return or Hex Breaker - WoH is 12+1+1heal, 10+1Prot, 7+1Divine and 4Dom/Shadow for Hexbreaker or Return (or go 12+1+1heal, 7+1Prot, 8+1Divine and 8 tactics for Disciplined) - E/Rt is 10+1+1energy, 12resto, 7+1water and 4+1air.

QQ I will end up writing it up probably anyway. Frostysig9000FrostytheAdmin 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Be moar brave and run two VoR mesmers, and LC, ONE warrior, and an IA ranger to do lolpressure. --AngelusEverton 00:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

UHm Hundred Blades Oo? Axe or Hammer imo... Massive Image-Massive Sig 14:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look up I did say it could be replaced by a number of warrior bars. Frostysig9000FrostytheAdmin 14:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I cba to change it, but you should probably not run the pact on the crip slash as mostly you run conjure, either put the pact on ranger or on other war imo. --Crowels[슴Mc슴]Mootles 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


gogo, this is focking meta :> Massive Image-Massive Sig 11:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoever made this is stupid. Hexway is really not balanced; it's an abuse of broken skills. Balanced hexway is therfore not possible. —ǘŋƐxɩsƫ 20:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's as balanced as hexway gets, especially compared to 1 R/D, 2 Me/Rt, 2 N/E, 2 Mo/Me E/Rt... Frostysig9000FrostytheAdmin 20:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Yet hexes are not balanced. Balanced is honorable builds played by skill; this isn't. This is how retarted the opponent positions themselves. —ǘŋƐxɩsƫ 20:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lose the Cripslash

You run WK with either coward axe or whirling--Goldenstar 20:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are you all seeing coward axe so much? I have honestly seen like 1 or 2 at max teams running a coward axe in the current meta, and none of those have been with hexway :/. --Crowels[슴Mc슴]Mootles 21:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe not so much in gvg, it's most used axe in HA though. Definitely Whirling axe w/hexway thoguh, and no second war--Goldenstar 21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

since when is hexway

balanced? 21:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Balance = a variation of professions, so yes this is balanced (hexway) Massive Image-Massive Sig 17:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It's balanced in the fact that it can split, deal with splits, and beat various teams through smart play. Smurf Ohai 10:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


Isn't too great in a dual ranger meta. --Crow 23:35, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

eh we just document the meta, does anyone run it? book used to frequently. Gringo 00:12, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
From what I've seen not many people play it, most common builds are really just dual ranger balanced and dual ranger dual para, with dual ranger balanced being the most common by far. --Crow 00:20, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
Oh and some guilds are running balanced too. --Crow 00:23, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
Lots of guilds are still using this in the 200-300 range to farm ladder--TahiriVeila 00:51, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
K, but it at least deserves to be out of great and in good or something, as 9 times out of 10 (a good) dual ranger shits all over this, and it is being used by basically everyone. --Crow 16:42, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
its still a great build, just not in this meta. that means it should either be archived or have its meta tag removed. i removed meta tag (so lower ranked people can still find the build on here). its not like top 50 players come here to get builds, so lets just leave it in Great for the bad people. Gringo 18:23, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
If it doesn't work in the meta it should be archived until the meta is over. Let us do the janitoring, you can do the disagreeing-with-other-people-who-should-be-voting part. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 18:30, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
ok then archive it, don't vote it down idiot. Gringo 18:37, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
If you please could stop constantly insulting and putting me down.
If you please could stop telling me to do things I did 5 minutes ago.
If you please could realize the reasoning in just voting down a build instead of archiving it, because some people actually still run it. Mel's shot as an example. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 18:40, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
Don't archive, it still does work, but it's just really difficult to beat a good dual ranger, there are still loads of average/shit dual rangers you can beat with this. --Crow 18:41, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
I dont play anymore, but i would think its still a great build if in the right hands. a good team running this will beat a lot of dual rangers, so it should still be in Great. its just that when two great teams running this vs dual ranger that it loses, but players like that won't get their builds off here. once the meta passes it'll be back in great, so lets just remove the meta tag and keep it in great. and chaos stfu, let crow and i talk. Gringo 18:46, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
If it's not as useful in the current meta, then it should stay in Good for the time being. If it completely slips out of play (can't see that happening, but...), then we'll archive it as "Great". I don't see why this is a problem. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 18:48, 19 November 2009
Im ok with that if you want to do it, im just saying that i think its still a great build, especially for the types of people that come to the site. Its a great build that just isnt in the meta, which is exactly why we have the meta tag system. Gringo 18:54, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Can I flame Saint now for starting drama about me doing the right thing to start with? ---Chaos- (talk) -- 18:55, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Nope. And I agree with you, Saint. But effectiveness (at least here) is normally measured by how proficient it is in the current meta. And Crow knows the current GvG meta better than most of us. I think "Good" is fine for now. If you disagree though, and want to continue to discuss why, feel free. I'm always willing to change my mind. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 18:57, 19 November 2009
I don't really disagree with him and he made good points, but he could well have kept it at a civil level. If he has a bad day and needs to flame something, then sure, but Luke is the other way. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 19:03, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
its because you did the first thing crow suggested, instead of waiting until a consensus had been reached. this just 5 minutes after writing "so much dickriding" on his rfbm. Gringo 19:04, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
You can't deny that Crow doesn't have knowledge of GvG. Both you and Jake also indicated that it's still ran but not so great at the moment. I also thought that leaving it in "great" for bad people to run a currently quite bad build is invalid documentation, and the only actually good choice was to rate it down to good. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 19:15, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
i've never denied that, and crow said that its difficult to beat a good dual ranger with this, which there arent many of in the 200-400 range of gvg. Gringo 19:20, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
LJ is banned atm :D. Anyway, if you have a problem with him, work it out on his talk page or report it on the AN. Tbh, I'd prefer the former. Saint, same thing. This is the wrong page for this. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 19:07, 19 November 2009
I actually have nothing against LJ, . ---Chaos- (talk) -- 19:15, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
Comments were mixed. I was referring to you and Saint (my first sentence was addressing what you said about him going to flame Luke rather than you). However, as I said, this conversation doesn't belong here. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 19:22, 19 November 2009
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.