How do you define a "mono" deck?

[Scaredgirl]

Stop getting stuck on pages 1-2. I moved on and came up with a simple solution, which Essence reiterated a few posts later. So we both win.

Nah, you guys are stealing

I went through the whole thread and unless I missed something, it was Lanidrak who first came up with this definition.

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.

Man, I cannot believe how I missed that post. Lanidrak gives a perfect explanation and everything he says is 100% truth.

I gotta give him an award for this discovery

[PuppyChow]

But... But... I was the one who voted for that option first! .

It doesn't matter though. All that matters is that we finally DID get the correct definition.

[teffy]

What´s a correct definition ?
Several definitions make sense.
This definition makes sense for me, but I don´t want to use it in chat and ingame.

[Scaredgirl]

But... But... I was the one who voted for that option first! .

It doesn't matter though. All that matters is that we finally DID get the correct definition.

Actually you talked about a different thing. You talked about quantum usage. If a deck uses only gravity quantum (and free cards) it's a mono-gravity, etc

This other idea originally by Lanidrak doesn't talk about quantum usage, it talks only about card costs. The difference is that with this definition you can take any mark you like and it doesn't effect the category of your deck.

This is how it should be and that's what makes this definition better than others. It's bulletproof as there are no decks that can "break" this definition. At least none that I can think of.

[teffy]

OK, its bulletproof, but it could sometimes be against intuition.
Example:

Edit: Example damaged - picture removed

[Scaredgirl]

OK, its bulletproof, but could sometimes be against intuition.
Example:

That looks like a mono-life to me. And the definition agrees. What's your point? You think that's a duo?

[teffy]

Yes,
The pillar part of a Mono-Deck would be different, I think.
Life gives the cards, but Water does the main damage.
For me, it´s duality of the colors.

[Scaredgirl]

Yes,
The pillar part of a Mono-Deck would be different, I think.
Life gives the cards, but Water does the main damage.
For me, it´s duality of the colors.

I see it as a mono deck because it's the life cards that do everything. Water is there just as a fuel so those life cards can function properly.

[jmizzle7]

Yes,
The pillar part of a Mono-Deck would be different, I think.
Life gives the cards, but Water does the main damage.
For me, it´s duality of the colors.

I see it as a mono deck because it's the life cards that do everything. Water is there just as a fuel so those life cards can function properly.

Agreed.

[Essence]

Likewise.

[Sigh]

Gah, I just had some crazy deja-vu on the last few posts on this page.

In other news, while I don't particularly like the accepted definition, I do see its sturdiness. Good show, chaps.

[Scaredgirl]

In other news, while I don't particularly like the accepted definition, I do see its sturdiness. Good show, chaps.

What's not to like? It's a perfect system.