How do you define a "mono" deck?

[PuppyChow]

In that case, SG, better make a quad deck section . Because I have a few decks that are trios and use animate weapons.

If a deck uses ALL gravity quantum, it is mono gravity. IMO. Basically, you want to use a definition that has no bearing on how a deck's quantum usage is. I do. I want to be able to tell by what forum it is in what type of quantum the deck uses. If it's in the mono deck section, I want to be able to know it uses only one type of quantum. Not two types with one being fueled by the mark. Two = duo. If it's in the duo deck section, I want to know that it uses exactly two types of quantum. Not one type of quantum with some animates or purifys thrown in.

It's really just a matter of how you look at it. Both methods are rather simple to implement. I just think that the quantum usage deciding what deck type it is gives some information about the deck, whereas yours doesn't. Sure, it would tell you what types of cards it uses, but what's really the use in that? Knowing if it will be affected by eclipse?

[Amilir]

Classifying deck based on gameplay or quantum usage is way too complex imo. My method is simple and makes sense.

If my deck uses water and earth quanta it's a duo water/earth.  How in the deepest depths of idiocy you can encounter is that complex?!

Nova, photon, spark, upped purify, and animate weapon are in the "other" set for all current purposes.  If I use two of those and a shard it it a rainbow?  If I use a gavel instead of a pulv in an earth deck is it a duo?  Duo earth/what?  Earth/other? Earth/rainbow?

Quanta needs to be produced, the color of a card means nothing for ten of the elements.

As a last thought, your mark IS a card, and should be treated like a pillar of the same element.

Your method may be simple, but it's useless and illogical.

[Scaredgirl]

In that case, SG, better make a quad deck section . Because I have a few decks that are trios and use animate weapons.

Like Bailey already said earlier, that deck is a rainbow.

If a deck uses ALL gravity quantum, it is mono gravity. IMO. Basically, you want to use a definition that has no bearing on how a deck's quantum usage is. I do. I want to be able to tell by what forum it is in what type of quantum the deck uses. If it's in the mono deck section, I want to be able to know it uses only one type of quantum. Not two types with one being fueled by the mark. Two = duo. If it's in the duo deck section, I want to know that it uses exactly two types of quantum. Not one type of quantum with some animates or purifys thrown in.

Yep, this is the same thing what Essence said earlier and it makes perfect sense because it gives you more information on what the deck is actually about.

If my deck uses water and earth quanta it's a duo water/earth.  How in the deepest depths of idiocy you can encounter is that complex?!

What I meant by that is that lets say you have a deck of 60 cards in front of you.

Using my method, we can see in 1-2 seconds, in which category this deck belongs simply by looking at the card colors/elements.

Using your method, we have to look at each individual card to see what quantum it uses and only after that we can determine the category.

Gameplay wise it makes more sense but it's also more complex. Difficult? No. More complex? Yes.

If my deck uses water and earth quanta it's a duo water/earth.  How in the deepest depths of idiocy you can encounter is that complex?!

Nova, photon, spark, upped purify, and animate weapon are in the "other" set for all current purposes.  If I use two of those and a shard it it a rainbow?  If I use a gavel instead of a pulv in an earth deck is it a duo?  Duo earth/what?  Earth/other? Earth/rainbow?

Those cards are not in "Other". Go to Bazar and click "Other" to see for yourself. And like I said earlier, I consider "Other" cards colorless cards that do not belong to any elements and therefore shouldn't be taken into consideration.

As a last thought, your mark IS a card, and should be treated like a pillar of the same element.

How is mark a card? There is a 60 card limit. I can take 60 cards and a mark. Does that mean I have 61 cards in my deck. It might act like a card but that doesn't make it a card.



Like I said before, all this is just semantics. There really is no right answer to this question because there are no official rules on what a mono-deck is in Elements.

Ultimately it's a question whether you categorize decks based on:

A) "set" they belong to
B) quantum usage

I'm fine with both definitions. Lets see what other people say and make necessary changes.



I have a fun question for you guys..

If I have a deck with 5 different Elements, but am only able to use cards from one element (very bad deck), by your definition that's a mono deck because it uses only one type of quantum, right?

Now lets say I know for a fact that my opponent is going to use Discord, and I'll build a mono-pillar-deck BUT I take cheap cards from all elements so that when my opponent hits me with Discord and I get other quantum, I can play those cards.

Is my deck a mono-deck or a rainbow deck? Does my opponents deck define what kind of deck I'm using?

[Amilir]

What I meant by that is that lets say you have a deck of 60 cards in front of you.

Using my method, we can see in 1-2 seconds, in which category this deck belongs simply by looking at the card colors/elements.

Using your method, we have to look at each individual card to see what quantum it uses and only after that we can determine the category.

Gameplay wise it makes more sense but it's also more complex. Difficult? No. More complex? Yes.

Wrong.  First, you only have to look at the mark/pillars/other quanta production to determine the type of deck.  Second, my definition is as simple as yours, it just takes another second to determine where a deck belongs.  Third, if the cards were black and white, it would take just as long.

Those cards are not in "Other". Go to Bazar and click "Other" to see for yourself. And like I said earlier, I consider "Other" cards colorless cards that do not belong to any elements and therefore shouldn't be taken into consideration.

for all current purposes

There is no difference.  Maybe in a few months, but right now, they are neutral cards with an element specific upgrade/downgrade.

Your mark is programmed as a card, identical to a pillar, one that you always start with.  I find the idea of only having a different mark be mono, while having a pillar or two be duo ridiculous.

Oh yeah, my definition does require another category: "stupid" decks.     With the exception of immolation, in a decent mono-duo-trio deck you only produce quanta you can use, so it's mostly irrelevant. 

Speaking of weird decks: a supernova mutation deck could still be mono by your definition, while using every element. 

Anyway, either could work, but quanta usage is more informative, so I think it should be the definition. 

[Scaredgirl]

Wrong.  First, you only have to look at the mark/pillars/other quanta production to determine the type of deck.

Think about it. Using that logic any deck with Quantum Pillars is a rainbow deck, no matter what cards it has. So any duo- or trio- deck out there that takes a single Quantum Tower would automatically become a rainbow deck?

You have to look at both the quantum production AND usage.

Those cards are not in "Other". Go to Bazar and click "Other" to see for yourself. And like I said earlier, I consider "Other" cards colorless cards that do not belong to any elements and therefore shouldn't be taken into consideration.

for all current purposes

There is no difference.  Maybe in a few months, but right now, they are neutral cards with an element specific upgrade/downgrade.

I'm using the definition given us by the game developer that can been seen when you login to the game. You use your own definition.

Now which one makes more sense?

Speaking of weird decks: a supernova mutation deck could still be mono by your definition, while using every element. 

Yes. It's a deck that has cards from only a single element, therefore I see it as a mono-deck. What happens once the game starts is irrelevant.

I like simple things. It would be weird if a deck of 30 Light cards is a mono-deck but a deck of 30 Entropy cards is a rainbow.



I like my definition because it leaves zero room for speculation. Your method can be interpreted in many different ways and requires you to look at every single card before you can determine in which category your deck belongs.

[teffy]

I have the following definition for Mono, Duo, Rainbow.

The Pillars determine the type of deck.
Mark counts as a pillar.
If there are Quantum pillars and other pillars (not mark) , it doesn´t normally count as Rainbow.
(Normally, it is kind of mono, like Aether+ Quantum Pillar  for PU)


The Graboid/Shrieker deck with Time mark is not mono for me, cause i have "no freedom to change my mark"
If i changed mark without changing cards, the cards would have less use.

I like this definition, because its well-defined in most cases.
I don´t define a deck by the color of your used cards, but by the color of the cards, the opponent can assume, you have.

[Daxx]

I personally disagree with Animate Weapon and Purify dragging otherwise mono-decks into duo-deck territory. Whilst normally looking at card types is a sensible way of doing things, those cards are just different because they can be used in any deck. An otherwise-mono-fire Flying Farenheit deck that happens to include some Animate Weapons hasn't suddenly become a duo deck just because Animate Weapon is nominally an air card. The deck generates and uses only fire quanta.

On the other hand I wouldn't immediate drop a deck that is splashing via mark only into a higher category either. Speed Poison is clearly a duo deck, but is the same true of Graboid/Shrieker? Or a mono-fire that splashes light for reflective shield? So really it's not wholly about what cards the deck has, nor is it wholly about what quanta the deck generates. Both are good rules of thumb but you have to think about it more carefully than just blindly applying a rule that can lead to unhelpful results.

[PuppyChow]

If I have a deck with 5 different Elements, but am only able to use cards from one element (very bad deck), by your definition that's a mono deck because it uses only one type of quantum, right?

Now lets say I know for a fact that my opponent is going to use Discord, and I'll build a mono-pillar-deck BUT I take cheap cards from all elements so that when my opponent hits me with Discord and I get other quantum, I can play those cards.

Is my deck a mono-deck or a rainbow deck? Does my opponents deck define what kind of deck I'm using?

1) Yes. It is still a mono deck, albeit a very bad one. You can only play cards from *one* of those elements. Then again, I might not even call that deck so much as a bunch of random cards thrown together .

2) Your opponent's deck has no bearing on what kind of deck yours is. You are still a mono deck, even if by some stroke of luck you end up being able to play a card from a different element. Let me ask you this: If you TU an opponent's creature and they rewind the creature you got, is your deck suddenly duo? Or even just TU an opponent's creature so you have one from a different element? No, because then your opponent's deck would be affecting yours.

[Scaredgirl]

I personally disagree with Animate Weapon and Purify dragging otherwise mono-decks into duo-deck territory. Whilst normally looking at card types is a sensible way of doing things, those cards are just different because they can be used in any deck. An otherwise-mono-fire Flying Farenheit deck that happens to include some Animate Weapons hasn't suddenly become a duo deck just because Animate Weapon is nominally an air card. The deck generates and uses only fire quanta.

That's true. It does make more sense that way.

The problem is how Elements is designed. This whole debate could easily be fixed by removing (or upping the cost) of all the zero cost cards that belong to an element.

We should only have:

- Cards that belong to a specific element and have a cost of one or more
- "Other" cards that have a cost of one or more
- "Other" cards that have zero cost

Basically you always have to pay if you want to take another element in your deck.

That kind of system is used on many CCG's and it makes more sense than the one Elements uses.

On the other hand I wouldn't immediate drop a deck that is splashing via mark only into a higher category either. Speed Poison is clearly a duo deck, but is the same true of Graboid/Shrieker? Or a mono-fire that splashes light for reflective shield? So really it's not wholly about what cards the deck has, nor is it wholly about what quanta the deck generates. Both are good rules of thumb but you have to think about it more carefully than just blindly applying a rule that can lead to unhelpful results.

I would definitely like to see Mark as a separate thing from your deck because if taking a Mark from another element makes your deck a duo, then it's impossible to build a mono-deck using all the cards in your element because some of the cards require quantum from other elements, like Anibis for example.

Forcing you to take the same mark really limits your options if you want to build a mono-deck.

Let me ask you this: If you TU an opponent's creature and they rewind the creature you got, is your deck suddenly duo? Or even just TU an opponent's creature so you have one from a different element? No, because then your opponent's deck would be affecting yours.

I disagree.

If an opponent does this TU + Rewind, he is changing my deck. Whatever cards I had before makes no difference. If you take the cards in your hand and look at them, it's a duo-deck, period. Where the cards came from doesn't matter.

[teffy]

I think there are good reasons, why some no-cost cards belong to an element.
The description of the cards and the name fits to the element and the playing style of the element.

[jmizzle7]

About marks... Marks are not part of a deck and are actually classified as 'Other' cards. Using those facts, a mark shouldn't be the determining factor on whether a deck is mono, duo, trio, whatever. The exception to this would be when the mark is the sole provider of quantum for off-element abilities such as Anubis and Graboid. In this case, Earth/Time quanta and Time/Aether quanta are intended to be used by the elemental (player). Whether or not the player uses the splash quanta for any other spells is irrelevant. So I believe intended quantum production and usage is the determining factor.

If you take intent into account, the TU+Rewind argument provided by SG doesn't really make much sense. I'll take it a step further and say that if your opponent Mutates a creature you control into a creature of an element you don't use, then Rewinds it, your deck's elemental status doesn't change at all. Sure, there is another element suddenly present in your deck, but it is an unwelcome addition. It was never intended that you would be able to cast that creature, which is exactly why your opponent cast Rewind on it in the first place. Your deck was intended to function as a Time/Earth deck, so that Guardian Angel in your hand is more of a benign growth than a functioning part of your elemental strategy.

Intent is at the core of deck building in every CCG. If we play the "what if" game, saying that Discord can make mono decks rainbow or mutation can make our duo deck trio, then we would have to take a universal perspective with this logic. If one has to account for every possible opposing card having an effect on the status of his/her type of deck, then every deck that contains naturally mortal creatures would have to be considered a rainbow deck. That doesn't make sense at all, now, does it? So again, I will propose my definition of the number of elements a deck uses:

"The number of elements present in a deck is exactly the number of elements intended to be produced and used during a match by that player."

So this definition can be applied to the mono-Entropy mutant deck. I consider the deck to be a kind of hybrid mono/duo/rainbow build, depending on the exact strategy. If the strategy is a blitz with only the Mutation card and Micro Aboms/Photons with no regard to mutant abilities, then it's mono. If it relies on Fallen Elf/Druid but with the same strategy, it is Duo. If the deck also packs supernovas to fuel mutant abilities, then it is a rainbow, because the player plans to use whatever quanta is necessary and called for by his/her mutants.

[Essence]

EDIT for clarity:

"The number of elements present in a deck is exactly the number of types of elemental quanta intended to be produced and used during a match by that player."

Even though it makes my personal element a royal PITA to build "mono decks" for, that is the only definition that concisely codifies the way that decks are thought about in deckbuilder's minds.  Even if you use Animate Weapon and Ray of Light in an Entropy Rush, if you don't intend to use the Light quanta for anything, it's still a mono deck.