Talk:Baal/@comment-26896603-20151026034704/@comment-26896603-20151026214831

I use a single buffer, Hades, nuller and 2 unleashers.

Results of a battle obviously "vary" - but you can easily tell differences between a super salvo card like Halloween Hades and a regular salvo card like Atalanta solely through the results of each fight and how cantankerous each fight is or is made to be.

With HH, you can kill a LAW in 4-8 turns (?) during a perfect setup.

With Atalanta there is no chance in 4-8 turns (?) no matter how much setup you have.

Both are salvo, however - HH takes more time and may fail terribly, but she rewards it well - Atalanta takes less time, but she's consistent with her output and you can likely get both procs in before dying out.

My point is simply to ask how different this result would be between a deck using Icicle and Baal, is.

From what I've tested and been told, the difference is negligible and isn't worth discussion, since the only answer I got was "400% is more than 200%" - not being aware that RNG with unleashes will most likely force you 3-4 buffs whether you like it or not.

You cap DEF sooner, but what's the point unless you die prematurely? Considering the example above, you have an extra buff proc anyway which you're forced to use. Even if Nubee releases a 450 ATK / 450 DEF card - it's stupid to think your unleashers are going to simply divert all unleash procs to your nuller on average the moment you cap ATK / DEF.

There will always be an unleash proc hitting your buffer, giving you an extra which you don't need and don't want - this is well-known to be true.

If this is the case, using Baal or Icicle wouldn't matter because every fight averages 3 buffs per LAW, 4 if you're unlucky, 5 if God abandoned you, which caps out A/D just by using Icicle.

Baal is neither gamebreaking nor overpowered compared to Icicle - she's a luxury card with a luxury buff.

HH is overpowered (10 salvo, instead of 5 situational salvo) - not Baal (laughs).