New rules for deck categorizing on this forum

[PuppyChow]

You could just make it duo/trio/quad decks, and make rainbow decks "Cards from 5+ elements *or uses quantum towers and/or supernova as main quantum source*".

Text in *s would be optional.

[Scaredgirl]

Actually, ScaredGirl's version is correct. 'Duo- and trio-deck' is a single subject.

Yay, me not fail english!

You could just make it duo/trio/quad decks, and make rainbow decks "Cards from 5+ elements *or uses quantum towers and/or supernova as main quantum source*".

Text in *s would be optional.

"Cards from 5+ elements" could work. Then non-rainbows would use one-third or less of the available elements and rainbows would use more than one third. Makes sense.

I don't like the other part though as it once again leaves tons of room for interpretation. How do you define "main quantum source"? At which point does "secondary quantum source" become "main"? There's no clear cut answer for that which only leads to confusion.

[Ashebrethafe]

So let's you have a trio deck (let's use my time/earth/aether). It has time towers, 3x aether towers, and mark of earth. It has 6x quicksands from earth and 2x TU from aether (in one version). It has eternities, anubii, silurian dragons, and *flying weapons*.

It's now a rainbow deck? Even though it only uses 3 types of quanta, no quantum towers, and no novas? And in reality it really only makes a lot of use with time; earth and aether are simply support elements?

Yes. It has cards from 4 different elements, therefore it's a rainbow. What cards it has is irrelevant.

I assume Scaredgirl meant "What quanta it has is irrelevant."

I find myself disagreeing with the new definition for the opposite reason from PuppyChow: pillars and marks whose quanta are used only for abilities. Marks because they're the first indication to my opponent of my deck's quanta, and pillars... probably because I've seen them called lands, and lands in Magic are colorless.

If I understand correctly, I now have a deck which I consider mono-air, but SG would call it a trio-deck (air/life/fire) because it contains emerald pillars so my FFQs can generate fireflies and burning pillars to ignite unstable gas. If I removed the burning pillars and changed my mark to fire, we'd agree that it was a duo-deck, but I'd call it fire/air and SG would call it air/life. And we agree that I have a mono-water deck -- SG would say it was at one or two points a rainbow deck (water/death/air/aether), but when that happened I replaced a sapphire pillar, a bone pillar, a wind pillar, and an aether pillar with four quantum pillars, and it now contains only water cards and quantum pillars.

I do have one deck that is definitely not mono, because I couldn't resist using the rare cards I won from the slots: my fire deck contains light pillars and a Miracle. And my first deck was undeniably a life rainbow (not-entropy), but so bad that I deleted it -- including my other rare non-weapon, a Shard.

Also, because I was looking at the accounts that have these decks, I just won my first card from the oracle: a Blessing for my water deck. I'll keep it mono.

[Essence]

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.   

[Scaredgirl]

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.

Yes. Those "colors" represent the different elements in this game. That's the categorizing done by the game developer. It would be pretty weird for us to abandon that and make up our own version of it, just because we think our version is better.

What's next? We start renaming the cards?

[Kamietsu]

I call dibs on renaming the fire cards!

[Planplan]

OMGWTFBBQ for Cremation !

[Ashebrethafe]

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.

Yes. Those "colors" represent the different elements in this game. That's the categorizing done by the game developer. It would be pretty weird for us to abandon that and make up our own version of it, just because we think our version is better.

What's next? We start renaming the cards?

I'm not sure how this differs from my understanding of what you would say, Scaredgirl -- and you seem to differ from zanzarino's categorizing too, except you treat the starting mark (but not mark cards, right?) as gray/other, rather than treating the pillars as gray. It doesn't really matter what you call my decks, as long as I'm not entering PvP events where it matters, or posting them on the wiki -- which I'm not going to do with any of my "mono" decks. My definition of mono (in short: gray pillars, colored marks, agree with zanz/SG on the rest) only dictates the way I currently fight computer players.

As for renaming the cards, the closest I've seen to that is referring to shards by their upped name (as I've edited my own quote below), and as I said before, using the word "lands" to mean pillars (or "no-land" for a pillarless deck).

And my first deck was undeniably a life rainbow (not-entropy), but so bad that I deleted it -- including my other rare non-weapon, a Shard of Gratitude (unupped).

And by life/not-entropy, I mean that the deck had a mark of life, and entropy was the only element that didn't have a card in the deck.

[xdude]

As for renaming the cards, the closest I've seen to that is referring to shards by their upped name (as I've edited my own quote below), and as I said before, using the word "lands" to mean pillars (or "no-land" for a pillarless deck).

PSST! She was sarcastic on that one.

[jmizzle7]

@Ashebrethafe:

Actually, mark cards are other cards. Although they retain the color scheme of the element to which they contribute, mark cards live in the other section. Pillars, on the other hand, live in the realm of the element to which they belong.

[Bloodshadow]

Why are we even arguing? SG established this thread as a rule. This thread indicates a rule, not an argument about the rule. By making this thread, SG had declared that you must accept her definition of deck categorizing, as long as you're in her forum; you have no right to argue against the rule, at least not in this thread.

If you want to argue about the definition of Mono deck, please do so in some other thread. This thread is not for arguments.

[Scaredgirl]

Bloodshadow, lets let the moderators do the moderating, shall we?

But you are right about the fact that this is not a discussion about what the deck category definition could be. This is just an announcement regarding what it is.

I've been thinking about making "News and Announcements" section read-only because it's not supposed to be for discussion. It's only for announcements and short comments about the announcement, not some in-depth discussion that goes on for days.

This whole deck category discussion has gone way too long because it's a minor issue really as it only affects forum navigation and forum events, and it's has nothing to do with the game itself. Unfortunately we have certain individuals who like to resurrect the subject and keep beating on the dead horse even after being repeatedly told not to do it. I'm hoping this will stop.

Locking thread.