How do you define a "mono" deck?

[jmizzle7]

Good edit, Essence. I missed that little detail when I was proofreading.

[Scaredgirl]

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:

I like facts more than intent. What someone intended to happen shouldn't make a difference.

Only thing that defines a deck are the cards in it.

Your intentions, strategy, position of Saturnus.. these things are all irrelevant.

The example that PuppyChow gave, in that example, in that precise moment the deck was a duo-deck. Whether or not it's unwelcome or not makes no difference. Cards are there, look at the cards.

But that's kind of off-topic as it's mostly a fun kind of philosophical question. What's more important is how this community and these forums define mono-decks.

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.

Mono-entropy is one example where this kind of categorizing fails. Am I the only one who finds it extremely inconvenient that you have to analyze each and every single card before you can determine in which category it belongs?

Noob: "What deck do you have there, jmizzle?"
jmizzle: "I'm running a kind of hybrid mono/duo/rainbow build, depending on what kind of exact strategy I'm going to use"
Noob: "..."

Isn't it easier just say: "Mono-Entropy"?

I'll say it again..

• 30 cards
• All same color
• All same element

..and you say it's a rainbow?

[Sigh]

All I'm going to say is this in terms of what he was saying: Depending on the INTENT of that mono-entropy, since there are many kinds of mono-entropy, there are different classifications. At least that's what I got out of what he said.

[Essence]

Only thing that defines a deck are the cards in it.

As big as you write it, SG, that's simply not true. 

As much as you like 'facts', the fact is that these decks are built to be played -- and thus the intended playstyle of the deck is literally the only thing that people who want to discuss the deck are interested in -- and JMizzle's definition is the easiest way to determine what a decks' playstyle is. 

If I post a deck that uses an Water Mark, Sapphire Pillars, Novas, Toadfish, Mind Flayers, Chrysora, and Freezes, your logic says that that is a duo-deck.  But the style required to play the deck is a rainbow style of thinking -- because you need to maximize the use of as much of the quanta the Novas provide as possible, or you're wasting the card.  There is no 'smaller element' to Mark for and balance against the Mark's quanta production -- and that's what "duo-deck" MEANS to the people who are looking at these decks.

In the end, no player EVER looks at a deck and asks himself "What color are these cards when I put them down on the field?"  -- but EVERYONE asks "How does this work?"

And if it works like a rainbow deck (i.e. it creates and uses 4+ types of quanta therefore it's main concern is balancing quanta usage for efficiency's sake), then it's a damn rainbow deck, even if every card in there is either blue or purple.

JMizzle might not have intended to create a definition that backs up mine, but he did -- it's easy to tell exactly what kind of playstyle a deckbuilder intended if you first look at what kinds of quanta are 'intended to be used' by the creator.   

If there's only one, it's a mono-deck, and your only concern is the order in which you play the cards.


Two, it's a duo-deck, regardless of if there is only one color of card in the deck (Lava Golems in an all Fire-card deck) or if there are FIVE colors of card in the deck (Pegasus, Purify (elite), Animate Weapon, Sundial (elite), and Spark in a deck that uses only Light and Air quanta.  Hey, it could happen.)  Now you have to be worried about consistency -- balanced decks tend not to work as well as splashed decks, so you try to minimize one element and rely heavily on the mark to power that element. 


Three, and it's a trio-deck.  Trio-decks basically HAVE to have one element that's restricted to one card powered by the mark, and then two more that can be balanced or imbalanced as the need comes.  At this point, you'd better be stringing together a strong combo out of your three elements, or it's not worth it.


Four or more, and it's a rainbow deck, because at that point you're balancing so many resources that you have to be constantly aware of which ones you're draining and how fast so that you can actually play the cards you put in your deck.


Those are FACTS of deckbuilding and game theory, not some irrelevancies like the position of Sagittarius or the prettiness of the card art.  And more importantly, they are the only FACTS that players and deckbuilders actually give a rat's ass about when they click into the "Decks" section.  (Well, that and "can I farm FGs with it?" ;p )

[teffy]

"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."

Not really.

You can make a deck with Darkness Pillars and  Devourers, without the intent to burrow them.
For me its Mono dark.

You can make the same deck with Earth Mark to burrow them.
For me its Darkness-Earth.

You can burrow them with Novae.
For me its Mono Darkness.

I say: "What you produce is what you can play" (and opponent knows it) so Pillars + Mark are the determining factor.
(Perhaps Bioluminescense, too)
Novae are no continuous income of quanta for me.
A Mark belongs to the deck. I see it as an undestroyable pillar which is played automatically, when the duel begins.

[jmizzle7]

I didn't realize my comment would start such a ruckus!

I'll start with Teffy. Your argument about your Darkness deck doesn't disagree with my rule at all. In fact, it is exactly my point. Just because a creature has an off-element ability doesn't mean you have to use it. If I run mono-Darkness with Darkness mark, including Devourers doesn't make it a duo deck because Devourers have an off-element ability. It becomes duo if you include a way to use the ability. Sure, it's not a very good use to have an Earth mark only to power the burrow ability, but it actually makes your deck do something that a truly mono dark deck cannot do. That's a pretty important difference.

SG, I just realized that I failed to mention earlier that something like mono-Entropy is a kind of weird exception to the rule. Because there are cards like Supernova (a distinctive rainbow card), a deck like mono-Entropy can have all cards of the same element and still maintain the ability to behave like a rainbow deck. After all, what other element can enable its own element into producing a Graboid with Freeze, and use it? Below are four different decks, all built with Entropy cards, with completely different game plans.

Mark -  Straightforward beatdown deck w/o mutants Mark -  Entropy/Life deck with mutants. Can use mutant abilities that require Entropy or Life quanta.

Mark -  Mono Entropy deck with mutants. Cannot use non-Entropy mutant abilities. Mark -  Entropy deck with mutants. Can use any mutant abilities.

It's important to note that I believe that Entropy is a definitive exception to my rule; while all four decks posted above are clearly mono in elemental structure, the very nature of the Entropy element itself dodges any sort of categorical definition of a mono deck.

Entropy is randomness; it is that thing that makes a glass unfixable once shattered. Entropy Elementals deal with disarray and chaotic creatures; they love to confuse their opponent and gamble with luck and probabilities.

That's a direct quote from the description of Entropy when you first choose your element. As the opposite of the Gravity element, Entropy can be summed up by one word: fission. Fission is the splitting of atomic matter into smaller particles, often accompanied by a release of energy. In Elements, Supernova is the release of energy when Entropy quantum splits. Entropy is the ultimate enabler element, capable of manipulating all of the elements all by itself. No other element can make this claim. So I believe that a mono-Entropy deck should be classified only by the required elements of the casting cost of the cards in its deck. Everything else can be categorized by my rule.

[Lanidrak]

Quite a ruckus indeed.

The way I see it, is:

A deck can have 30 to 60 cards. You  need to have a percentage of these cards to be Pillars to generate your quanta. It makes the most logical sense to use the Pillars which allow you to cast the majority/if not all the other cards in your deck. This perspective ignores your Mark and ignores the Abilities which your creatures can cast. I'm meaning simply the cards you can cast from your hand. So, if it is in your deck, you can draw it, that is what your pillars are for.

From Deck to Hand to Table. In my opinion is what determines the classification of your deck.

If in your Deck you have cards which cost Air and Life, and subsequently you have Air and Life Pillars your deck is Duo. Regardless of what your Mark is. A Mark is only one pillar and therefore cannot truly turn your deck from a Duo into a Trio.

Say for example, I have a 40 Card deck with 15 Time Pillars, 6 Anubis, 2 Hourglasses, 4 Eternity, 6 Devonian Dragons, 4 Rewind Times and 3 Lightnings. My Mark is Aether...

In my opinion this above deck is a Time-Aether deck. Simply because of the 3 Lightnings. Cards which are of the Aether element, which cost Aether. This deck could be made a Mono-Time deck, again, in my opinion by simply removing the 3 Lightnings and replacing with 3 Procrastinations. With the mark still being Aether.

Again, this goes back to my idea of the Deck to Hand to Table, way of classifying a deck. All your cards in your deck cost Time to play, so when you draw a card, you will definitely have the Quanta to play it (eventually) from the Pillars. The fact that the Mark is Aether, doesn't change the fact that this deck ONLY has Time cards in it, the Aether is there to play your Anubis' 'Immortalize'. Therefore, a Creature ability falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Deck to Hand to Table. As the Anubis is already on the Table when he uses his ability.

What I do disagree on, or agree on (the above posts were a bit long-winded and confusing this early in the morning), is that if a card costs 0 Quanta, it can be used in ANY deck, without changing it's classification. 30 Card Deck, 12 Entropy Pillars, 6 Microabominations, 6 Novas, 4 Improved Mutations. This deck is Mono-Entropy - again, all cards are Entropy to play, Nova is costless. The Nova is there to give you quanta, outside of the Deck to Hand to Table, as it is only when you play Nova (it is removed from the game) and it gives you +12 Quanta.

This might have just been an elaboration on what has been said before. But simply put:

Cards in your Deck:
Costing only 1 type of element to put on the table = Mono.
Costing 2 types of element to be put on the table = Duo
Costing 3 types of element to be put on the table = Trio
Costing 4 or more types of element to be put on the table = Rainbow

The fact that your deck has Firefly Queens and Air and Life Pillars, but no other Life Cards, makes it a mono-deck. It would just be a lot more efficient to use no Life Pillars but have Mark of Life.

[Scaredgirl]

(I edited the poll so that people can change their vote in case this discussion has made them change their minds)

I'd like to get a final solution for this so that we can change the wording and protocol on this forum.

It looks like 73% of voters think mono-decks should have cards from only one element. To me that makes sense because mono=one.

But then there are these damn free-to-play cards from other elements which technically make the deck duo, but it still functions like a mono-deck.

On top of that we have the marks which are kind of like cards but not really.

As I've said before, I like simple things. I would like to find an easy solution for this. Not some 500 word essay on what makes a deck mono- or duo, but a simple explanation that leaves no room for interpretation. Preferably something I can write under the forum sections.

Anyone have an idea what that solution could be?

[Scaredgirl]

Hey, I think I have a good solution for this.


Mono-decks
Decks that use one kind of Pillar

Duo-decks
Decks that use two kinds of Pillars

Rainbow-decks
Decks that use Quantum Towers


This will solve all our problems and make (almost) everyone happy.

Trio-decks are not needed because nobody uses 3 different kinds of pillars.

This definition won't make a 30 card Entropy deck a rainbow but that's a good thing because people who claim it's a rainbow are nuts.

I'm a zombie just about to go to bed so there might be some things I'm not thinking about but to me right now this looks good. Simple, no room for interpretation. Perfect.

[PuppyChow]

I agree with that definition. About the trio decks, though, I have a few that use 3 kinds of towers (I don't use those decks very often though). But the definition still fits; could be something like:

The number of types of pillars/towers there are in your deck determines what type it is (mono, duo, etc). Decks with quantum towers are rainbow decks.

Or, if we wanted to get more complex (which I don't think we do), we could solve this grouping's problem: life/aether, for example. Let's say it splashes aether for quintessence and uses adrenalined flying druid staffs. That is clearly duo; it uses *quintessence*, the alchemy card for aether. Alchemy cards are kinda like (insert element) in a bottle. However, going by your idea, it would be a mono life deck even though it is actually duo.

To solve this, the definitions could be...

Mono: One type of pillar AND cards of different elements must have 0 cost or cost other quantum.
Duo: Two types of pillars OR one type of pillar and (different) mark fuels cards that cost the mark's quantum.
Trio: Three types of pillars OR two types of pillars and (different) mark fuels cards that cost the mark's quantum.
Rainbow: Uses quantum towers.

(Your deck's type is determined by the number of different types of pillars OR that number minus one if your mark is different from your pillar types and that mark fuels cards that cost the mark's quantum. Rainbow decks use quantum towers.)

With those definitions, it would still be fairly easy to make a decision, and deck's like life/aether would still be life/aether. Since even though it only uses 1 type of pillar, it also uses quintessence which costs 3 AETHER. Since your mark is aether (which is different from your pillar type) and quint costs 3 aether (which is your mark's quantum), it fits the definition of duo.

At the same time, earth/time with time mark for graboids only would still be mono, but then if you added in rewinds, it would be duo since rewinds cost your mark's quantum and your mark is different from your pillar type. And a deck using animate weapons would still be mono since they cost other quantum.

Still, though, that might be too complex for your tastes .

[Scaredgirl]

Yeah.. I didn't even read all that. That's the 500 word essay I was trying to avoid

To get trio-decks back into mix, all we need to do is:


Mono-decks
Decks that use one kind of Pillar

Duo- and Trio-decks
Decks that use two or three kinds of Pillars

Rainbow-decks
Decks that use Quantum Towers


Someone not happy with this definition?

[PuppyChow]

Mono: One type of pillar AND cards of different elements must have 0 cost or cost other quantum.
Duo: Two types of pillars OR one type of pillar and (different) mark fuels cards that cost the mark's quantum.
Trio: Three types of pillars OR two types of pillars and (different) mark fuels cards that cost the mark's quantum.
Rainbow: Uses quantum towers.

This is the definition I was proposing versus yours. The rest of the post was just explaining the reasoning behind it and the problem with yours.