Rainbow Decks are awesome, and that's stupid.

[lava golem]

Thing about rainbow decks are that they can use a bit of everything and focus on something powerful that's powered by their mark, like using antimatters and Snovas with entropy mark. But monos, duos and trios focus on a few elements, therefore boosting the power of those elements to nearly the max when it's a mono or duo. Rainbows are just more diverse.

[Kuross]

Aside from the rainbow debate, the OP did have an interesting idea- creatures get bonuses for sharing the same element as the mark.

Although the OP's idea is a bit OP, I'd be fine with "If 4 or more creatures on your side of the field share the same element as the mark you are playing, and no other creatures from other elements are in play on your side, all creatures you control get +1/+1." I could even stack with Eclipse if it isn't too OP.

However it could/would theoretically work, there's no doubt more emphasis could be applied to mono decks, or at least mono creature decks with spalshed permanents and spells. Point is I think the idea has merit and worthy of discussion.

[Ajit]

Ah thanks for the consideration Kuross.

That wouldn't be bad at all I don't think.  Only people who never really benefit from +/+ boosting are people that beat opponents by methods other that a creature beat down.

_____

Perhaps up the cost of ALL cards in the game by one quanta (minus special stuff like Nova)

Then, any cards that your mark shares with gets a one quanta cost reduction

[RootRanger]

I think that if you really insist on strengthening mono decks, you just keep it simple. Instead of creating strange situational rules, create a card that is strong against rainbows or it helps monos. Examples of this are black hole and nightfall.

[Demut]

I think that if you really insist on strengthening mono decks, you just keep it simple. Instead of creating strange situational rules, create a card that is strong against rainbows or it helps monos. Examples of this are black hole and nightfall.

That is a bad idea. A soft counter mesh is good, creating hard counters is bad.

[Rainmaker]

The weakes point in rainbow decks are:
+quanta stock
+card drawing
+build up

That said, most effectives decks against rainbow are the ones that messes with you quanta (black holes, gravity nymbhs); and the ones that build up a lot faster than rainbows (usually upped mono or duo decks, like fire rush, graboid shrieker, life rush); and the ones that shut downs (deflagration [fire], destroy [gravity or entropy]).

There only alternative is a speedbow deck, but those lack of control cards (pulverizers, deflagration, oughtys, etc)

[geekz_always_win]

Your buff method isn't fool proof either. I can run a fractal/ball lightning deck and easily win so many games because it'll be 0 quanta for as many 6|1 creatures as I want.

[Essence]

Rainbow decks aren't as awesome as you think, period.  That's really the whole focus of the argument, and it's wrong.

Rainbow decks:
* Have consistency issues (i.e. they don't play the same)
* Have inherent quanta limits (i.e. they can't play really expensive cards of any given element except Fire)
* Are very prone to getting slaughtered by quick quanta denial (to prevent Supernovas)
* Are more prone to bad draws (because they rely on Supernova) OR are relatively slow (if they rely on QTs)
* Are easy to stall out (because they need exactly 30 cards to maximize the chance of drawing Supernova) OR slow again.

In short, if you think rainbow decks are awesome, it's because your playstyle has a weakness, not because the decks are themselves superior.