How do you define a "mono" deck?

[Lanidrak]

This thread is giving me mild basal traumatic sub-arachnoid haemorrhage. I don't even know what that is, or what this thread is about any more .


In keeping with the simple is good/complex should be shot, ideology. I think scaredGirl has hit it on the mark. Oh great, I'm writing in puns.

Mono = One. So a mono-deck has cards which only cost one kind of element.
Duo = Two. So a duo-deck can have cards which cost 2 different kinds of elements.
Rainbow = Well, Rainbow. A deck which uses Quantum Pillars is generally a Rainbow.

I hope the slight edit of 'cards which cost...' can help clarify the issue with upgraded cards which are free to play, Ray of Light, Cremation, Animate Weapon etc.

As for hitting it on the Mark. As I said (somewhere in my dissertation on Elemental Classification, I think around paragraph 3, subsection 4, part 2). A Mark only gives +1 of a quanta. Therefore it is simply one pillar, the difference being is that it starts the game on the table.

People generally have 12 to 20 pillars in their deck, so what the hell does a Mark have to do with any of this? Let's just ignore the Mark, and say Mono = One, Duo = 2, Rainbow = Rainbow. You can have whatever Mark you want.

[jmizzle7]

It's a good thing nobody thinks mono-Entropy is rainbow, otherwise that comment would be considered offensive, SG. Your idea is good enough for the purpose of forum topics, but I think Puppy's and Lanidrak's are better because they leave less room for interpretation, which is what this is all about anyway.

[PuppyChow]

Oh and if you're worried about my idea being too complex, it's really not . All you would have to do is copy-pasta this little tidbit:

Ask yourself, does my deck have quantum towers?
Yes: Congrats! You have a rainbow deck.
No...

Does my deck have pillars that are the same type as my mark?
Yes: Count your types of pillars. That's your deck type.
No...

Does my deck have cards that cost the same type as my mark (not including skills)?
Yes: Count your types of pillars and add one. That's your deck type.
No: Count your types of pillars. That's your deck type.

[Lanidrak]

And Jmizzle7 get's some nice karma for that . Anyways, it's all semantics, everyone roughly has an idea in their head of what a mono and what a duo or rainbow deck is.

The real problem is if we ever have a Tournament say - 30 Cards, Mono - then we will need a clear-cut definition of what Mono is.

[Scaredgirl]

People generally have 12 to 20 pillars in their deck, so what the hell does a Mark have to do with any of this? Let's just ignore the Mark, and say Mono = One, Duo = 2, Rainbow = Rainbow. You can have whatever Mark you want.

Yep.

This is also good because if marks are not considered cards, mono-decks can use all the cards in their element.

If marks were considered cards, mono-decks have much less options. For example mono-time that takes an Anubis and mark of Aether, suddenly becomes a duo-deck even though all the cards are Time.

It's a good thing nobody thinks mono-Entropy is rainbow, otherwise that comment would be considered offensive, SG.

Um.. this next one is a direct quote of what you said earlier on this same thread:

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.

I don't think I need to add anything to that, do I?

Also I think someone else said the same thing before or after you.

I forget 90% of things talked on this forum but when someone suggests something crazy like mono-Entropy being a rainbow, that sticks on my brain.

Your idea is good enough for the purpose of forum topics, but I think Puppy's and Lanidrak's are better because they leave less room for interpretation, which is what this is all about anyway.

Lol, how does my suggestion leave room for interpretation? It cannot get any simpler than it already is and there is zero room for interpretation. Unless of course there is a way to take one and a half pillars, in which case it would be difficult to determine whether it's mono or duo.

One Pillar = mono
Two Pillars = duo
Three Pillars = trio
Quantum Pillar = rainbow

What's there to interpret?

[Kamietsu]

So does that mean every single Lvl 5 Halfblood uses a rainbow deck?

[Essence]

Kamietsu, fortunately, we're not talking about the AI, as they sometimes to silly things.

This is about player-built decks, and I'm in agreement with SG's last post.  I, too, see an emergence of trio-decks with the addition of Nymphs to the game.  Lots of water/aether/X decks to get several copies of X nymph all immaterial.

But essentially, I agree.  If a deck has one kind of pillars, it's a mono-deck, even if the Mark is different and there are cards of a second element in it.   

(Truthfully, I think that last part is kind of silly, but it'll make building very successful mono-Water decks a lot easier, so I'm all for it. )


Let's do that.

[jmizzle7]

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.

...not BE a rainbow deck. Entropy is all about randomness and manipulating other quanta. So mono Entropy, while it is mono, can pretend to be a rainbow. That doesn't mean it is one. But whatever.

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.

Yeah, that sounds a whole lot like somebody claiming a mono deck to be rainbow.
[/off-topic]

Anyway... the number of elements in a deck shouldn't be based on pillars, because then I could technically put one Quantum Tower in my deck and call it a rainbow. The number of elements in a deck, for the purposes of forum topics and tournament play, is the number of different elements among casting costs of cards in the deck. So cards like Photon, Spark, and upgraded Sundial don't count. Simple enough.

[Essence]

That should specifically exclude activation costs, then?

[Scaredgirl]

But essentially, I agree.  If a deck has one kind of pillars, it's a mono-deck, even if the Mark is different and there are cards of a second element in it.   

Aargh.. this is where my definition fails. Dammit.

That popular poison deck has 12 Water cards, and 18 Death cards, you can't get much more duo than that. However using this new definition, that deck would be a mono?

That's not good.

I'll get some sleep. You guys fix this. I'm expecting a perfect solution when I wake up

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.

...not BE a rainbow deck. Entropy is all about randomness and manipulating other quanta. So mono Entropy, while it is mono, can pretend to be a rainbow. That doesn't mean it is one. But whatever.

You know you cannot make a counter argument by quoting something else. The quote I took had you saying that the particular Entropy deck is a rainbow deck. It's there in black and white for everyone to see.

I don't know what you meant to say, I only responded to what you did say.

[Essence]

All right, here's the perfect definition (as per JMizzle):

A deck is defined by the casting costs of the cards it contains.

One elemental type in the casting costs = mono deck.
Two elemental types in the casting costs = duo deck.
Three elemental types in the casting costs = trio deck.
Four or more elemental types in the casting costs = rainbow deck.

This manages to concisely deal with strange outliers like Nymph decks that carry pillars that have no purpose except to be turned into Nymphs, but only have Water casting costs in the deck's cards -- those are Mono decks -- as well as bizarre decks that are pillarless but have Pegasus/Werewolf/Fire Master/Forest Spectre/Graboid in order to maximize the use of Novas and Cremations -- those are Rainbow decks even if they have no QPs in them.


Simple, effective, doesn't raise any questions.  Does it?

[jmizzle7]

@SG: I understand you were responding to what I originally said, and I get that you can't read minds. I don't expect you to. But you were stuck on what I originally said. I merely quoted myself to show you that I clarified what I meant later, because you either missed it or didn't read it. It's not that big a deal, but ask questions next time if something is unclear instead of jumping to conclusions.

@Essence: Thanks! Of course Elements is more complex than this labeling system, but who cares? How one guy defines the minutiae of the game doesn't have an effect on how I play or build decks. It's just a matter of convenience to have a standardized definition.