Mono-deck definition

[mesaprotector]

This has probably been discussed before, but if it was it was before I was here, so please have patience!  In any case:

The current definition of a "mono" just doesn't make sense. The balancing issues with duos and trios as opposed to monos make, say, Graboid rush much more like a duo than a mono. It's a similar challenge to balance an Earth rush which only uses the mark for Rewinds. On the other hand, a true mono-earth allows a pillar/pend split because it only uses quanta.

Another thing that seems just wrong is that adding Animate Weapon (or other free cards) to a deck adds another element. Would anyone really argue that Divine Glory's deck is more like a trio than a duo?

To take two rather extreme examples:

(6x Shard of Serendipity)

by mesaprotector

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

6qq 6qq 6qq 6qq 6qq 6qq 6qq 6qq 6qq 6qq 6qq 6qq 6s1 6s1 6s1 6s1 6s1 6s1 6ts 6ts 6ts 6ts 6ts 6tu 6tu 6tu 6u6 6u6 6u6 6u6 8pn

by mesaprotector

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

77e 77e 7dg 7dg 7dg 7di 7di 7di 7dj 7dj 7dj 7dn 7dn 7dp 7dp 7dp 7dp 7dp 7dp 7ds 7ds 7ds 7ds 7f2 7f2 7f2 7jp 7jp 7mt 809 8po

Which deck is the mono and which is the rainbow?  Um... really?

[dragonsdemesne]

The forum definition of a mono is based on the card elements contained within the deck.  My personal idea of what a mono is is what quanta it uses.  Thus, I'd think of your first deck as either a duo or a rainbow, depending on how you looked at SoSe, and your second one as monofire because it only uses fire quanta.

The current definition of a mono makes sense in that it is well-defined and unambiguous (i.e. you never have a case where you don't know if something is a mono or not) but it isn't as practical, because a deck like Divine Glory plays like a duo, even though it's a trio by forum rules.  Your (and my) definition of a mono makes more practical sense, because it takes into account actual play, rather than a simple screenshot of the deck, but then you get into more ambiguous territory with the definition.

[willng3]

I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that a Graboid rush is much more like a duo than a mono because of "balancing issues".  It's obtaining 1 per turn from its mark; in what way does this present a balancing problem for the rest of the deck?  Just because you're unable to create a Pend/Pillar split?  That doesn't make sense to me.

Let's look at this Animate Weapon debate from another perspective.  Animate Weapon is supposedly supposed to be considered of the Other Element because it doesn't use any specific quanta.  The question is:  Where in Elements do we find this Other quanta?  Wouldn't it be true that Animate Weapon consumes a specific quanta type depending on what Elements are put into your deck?  This effectively means that sticking a Nova in a deck with Animate Weapon causes the deck to automatically become a Rainbow.  The same could be said of any deck using Cremation, Quantum Towers, etc.

On the subject of Nova, why should we stop at quanta consumed?  Why not also factor in quanta generated?  It's a common misconception in the current system that a card such as Nova is of the "Rainbow Element" because it produces 12 different quanta.  So why should we make the categorization only based on quanta consumed instead of quanta generated by the deck when it makes just as much sense?  Or better yet, why not form a system which uses both?  If we were doing categorization based on quanta generated/a combination of the two, then the second deck would be considered a Quartet because it's also producing , , and as well .  It's not so simple, is it?

Now, why have I bothered asking these ridiculous number of questions?  Because I want to make my final point:  Based on what I've stated above, which system of categorization would be simpler to use?  I'm not asking for which one makes the most sense, but for which one would lead to the least amount of confusion among users when posting their decks in the forums.  The current system is both practical and straightforward:  You simply count the number of colors you see on your deck screen and then put it into its appropriate section.  I don't know how it could be any easier.

To echo my thoughts, I've dug up this quote from a past discussion on the current categorization of decks when the current system was first put into place:

You don't understand properly.  Using skills and activated abilities is irrelevant.  The casting costs of your cards are irrelevant.  The quanta your deck produces is irrelevant.  The quanta your deck uses is irrelevant.  The colors of the cards you end up with in play or even in your hand is irrelevant.  Literally EVERYTHING is irrelevant except the colors that show up on the cards when you click them into your Your Deck screen.

[teffy]

This  (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,2315.0.html)was the (quite long) discussion, which led us to the current definition.
One note: It was made in a time before pendulums came.