Hootcake vs Angelly - A Madolche Discussion

[The Warden]

 V  
 

When this card in your possession is destroyed by your opponent's card (either by battle or by card effect) and sent to your Graveyard: Shuffle this card into the Deck, You can target 1 monster in your Graveyard; banish it, and if you do, Special Summon 1 "Madolche" monster from your Deck, except "Madolche Hootcake". You can only use this effect of "Madolche Hootcake" once per turn.

 

 

When this card in your possession is destroyed by your opponent's card (either by battle or by card effect) and sent to your Graveyard: Shuffle this card into the Deck. You can Tribute this card; Special Summon 1 "Madolche" monster from your Deck. It cannot be destroyed by battle, also shuffle it into the Deck during your next turn's End Phase. You can only use this effect of "Madolche Angelly" once per turn.

 

 

Both have been in the game long enough now, and both of them have had the most impact on the Madolche archtype. But the question is: Which one is more or less, 'bad' for the game? Personally, I find Hootcake is still the problem, even more so because Angelly exists now. What do you guys think? Was Angelly a mistake? Or will she justify the limiting of Hootcake?

[Maeriberii Haan]

Angelly didn't even existed yet. But Hoot's pretty much the more broke of the two (though Queen is the prime culprit of brokeness).

[Toffee.]

Was Angelly a mistake?

this won't end well

*Cough*

In all seriousness, though, the fact Hoot Summons from the Deck is the whole issue with that card, and because it's cost literally isn't even counterproductive to the deck at all.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

it's cost literally isn't even counterproductive to the deck at all.

Name one, just ONE deck that has a "cost" that is counter productive and still played today. Konami tossed out "drawback" a long time ago.

 

But yeah, Hootcake is the only real issue here. Angelly is just mean/leave a rock on the field.

[Maeriberii Haan]

Tbh, neither wil even be that broke (hootcake maybe, but you can't simply OTK with it alone) if Queen didn't exist.

Tbh, neither wil even be that broke (hootcake maybe, but you can't simply OTK with it alone) if Queen didn't exist.

[Miror B]

Angelly's only real power play by itself is summoning Hootcake.

Nuff said?

[玄魔の王]

If Angelly were made BEFORE Hootcake, there would be no real issues. Hootcake is the more broken card, but the decision to make Angelly AFTER is what is creating a problem. Of course, my biggest problem with the deck is I keep wanting to eat my cards when I'm drunk.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

Well, at least hootcake isn't a four. But wasn't the deck kind of weak without Hootcake? I mean, every deck needs its play.

[玄魔の王]

Well, at least hootcake isn't a four. But wasn't the deck kind of weak without Hootcake? I mean, every deck needs its play.

My understanding is Hootcake, for all the damage it does, still isn't the problem card. That appears to be Tiaramisu.

[Wildflame]

Hooters is the biggest issue.

[Miror B]

Hooters is the biggest issue.

Emphasis on "biggest"

[玄魔の王]

Hooters is the biggest issue.

It probably is since it gives the deck more consistency, but it isn't the only issue, and Tiaramisu is debatably of equally bad design.

[Mugendramon]

Emphasis on "biggest"

 

Says the Gardevoir with the rack.

 

Out of the two Hoot is worse but Tiara is the problem.[/thread]

[Slinky]

Well, at least hootcake isn't a four. But wasn't the deck kind of weak without Hootcake? I mean, every deck needs its play.

 

Invoker exists. They can turn that rank 3 into a rank 4 play.

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

Anyone that says Tiramisu is the problem doesn't understand the enabler vs enabled argument.

If the deck becomes too good, either one of these could stand to go; Not Tiramisu.

[-Noel-]

since Angelly exist, im pretty sure that Hoot will get hit soon, maybe go straight from unlimited to limited or maybe semi-limited. but for Tiaramisu, even it's eff is broken, it still need specific requirement, so unless Madolche is as powerful as former Dragon Rulers, it won't get hit so easily

[玄魔の王]

Anyone that says Tiramisu is the problem doesn't understand the enabler vs enabled argument.

If the deck becomes too good, either one of these could stand to go; Not Tiramisu.

Tiaramisu is still a terrible designed card that can +4 by itself while clearing the field. Somehow I feel this is bad whether it's the enabled or not.

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

Terrible design and banworthy are two entirely different things.

[玄魔の王]

Terrible design and banworthy are two entirely different things.

Never said ban it, but I'd limit Hootcake and Tiaramisu. Angelly is, as stated, only a problem because of Hootcake.

[Maeriberii Haan]

As much as I like to see Tiara to be erased from existence, they'll probably hit Hoot first, as Konami is a firm believer of enabler-enabled clause. But hopefully, they could just take the middle way and hit both, like the poster above me said.

[Canadian]

Even with one Hootcake it is still pretty ridiculous.

[Althemia]

Personally I would hit Ticket with one of them as well since that card is literally perfect set-up the card, but y'know..

[Maeriberii Haan]

Hootcake at 1 doesn't mean much with Evanjellyon, ticket, and Magileine running around. Especially Jelly, as it made cake can't be run over for a while if you veiler'd it.

[Zauls]

OK so I was at locals today and a guy went 5-0 in Swiss not even dropping a single game as well as winning his top 8 match 2-0. When I left he was 1-1 against Fire Fist. I'd say this deck is pretty underrated as it is and Anjelly will just make it ridiculous.

[The Hounds Of Anubis]

That's a very small number of games to make that sort of assumption on.