Behold the power of Mono-Water!

[Tea is good]

Wait a sec, that counts as mono? Well cool. I'm sure people thought of the "Spam malignent cells so that opponen't can't summon anything" strategy before me. But I like to think i thought of it first. I distinctly remember suggesting it in Kong chat and people saying it was a stupid idea

[Essence]

Your using two diffrent pillars, have two kinds of cards in play,

...neither of which matters, because I only have cards with Water casting costs in the deckbuilder.

If you count cards in play toward your deck's color, you have to call a Fallen Druid (or even a deck with a Fate Egg in it) a "rainbow" deck.  That's plain silly.  The only cards that matter toward your deck's actual definition are the cards you have in your deck when the game starts. 

That's where Mono-Water gets a big leg up on some of the other elements, as it's the only element that can control what off-element cards it produces (via Nymph's Tears/Nymph Queen).

[Daxx]

I'm sure people thought of the "Spam malignent cells so that opponen't can't summon anything" strategy before me.

That person was probably Zanz, as that is the entire point of the card.

[Cisco]

Your using two diffrent pillars, have two kinds of cards in play,

...neither of which matters, because I only have cards with Water casting costs in the deckbuilder.

If you count cards in play toward your deck's color, you have to call a Fallen Druid (or even a deck with a Fate Egg in it) a "rainbow" deck.  That's plain silly.  The only cards that matter toward your deck's actual definition are the cards you have in your deck when the game starts. 

That's where Mono-Water gets a big leg up on some of the other elements, as it's the only element that can control what off-element cards it produces (via Nymph's Tears/Nymph Queen).

Using the druid is a good point but it can be fuled bye the mark and you do need to go rainbow to use the abilitys. I don´t care  much for the definitaion some use now after sorting it out in the thread. Simply said multiple pillars =Duo. I can go with the mark as a diffrent one, not the pillars though.Just my oppinion as we all saw that how you define a deck has lots of defintions for everyone.

[Terroking]

You have death cards in your deck, towers/pillars count as cards from their element, otherwise NT wouldn't make sense "The element of the tower...", decks with sparks or photons should be counted as including aether or light, but are not for decency, the cards should probably be in the other section.

[Essence]

Read the relevant thread.  The discussion is over, and the issue has been settled.

[jmizzle7]

So..... this deck singlehandedly gives the final definition of a mono deck a gigantic middle finger, and is the reason why I ever mentioned the idea of intent with regard to deck construction. Being able to generate Death cards and have the quanta to use them is hardly a mono thing to do. While I agree that it uses Nymph's Tears extremely well, Nymph's Tears isn't intended to be a part of a mono deck strategy. Water is the only element that has more than one naturally occuring off-element ability. In fact, it has FOUR of them (Trident- , Toadfish- , Mind Flayer- , Chrysaora- ). It's totally possible to make a deck with Mark of Water, a couple of Sapphire Towers, Quantum Towers, and copies of the aforementioned cards along with Nymphs tears, so that you could not only use the abilities of any water cards you play, but also you could produce a Nymph of any element. Sure, that's what Nymph's Tears does, but it's really hard for me to swallow that it is a mono deck.

[/two cents]

[Essence]

I steadfastly disagree.  Entropy creates cards of other colors and specifically contains a card that creates the quanta necessary to use them.  If Mutation+Supernova isn't a rainbow deck, then Nymph's Tears + the pillars it MUST HAVE in order to function isn't a duo deck, straight up.

The only difference between the two is that Water can predict what off-element cards it generates, which makes sense based solely on the fact that it's not Entropy.


And yes, I've played with similar mono-water decks using  , , and  Nymphs.  Only the  and  really make a lot of sense.  Petrify just doesn't stack well with Freeze; Unstable Gas is useless without Fire quanta.  Immateriality is strong, but surprisingly slow.  Aflatoxin is solid, though.

[Terroking]

So creating a deck with 6 FQ, 10 air towers and 14 emerald towers, would be a mono deck?

mono-entropy decks contain only entropy cards, your contains death pillars, which is a death card.

[Essence]

Yes, Terroking, that deck is specifically a mono deck, because there is exactly one element involved in the casting costs of the cards.  That's what Mono-Deck means.

[Terroking]

The poll on that thread says nothing like that.


Cards of only one element, any type of quanta
     20 (46.5%)
Only one type of quanta used, cards of any element
     9 (20.9%)
Cards of only one element, only one type of quanta used
     11 (25.6%)
Some other definition (details in reply)
     3 (7%)

Death pillars are a death card, therefore it is not, by popular opinion, a mono-deck.

[Essence]

Not to be snide, but try actually READING the thread.  It became obvious quickly that the poll was nowhere near complex enough to address the issue.