How do you define a "mono" deck?

[Xiahou Dun]

Ok, we need to make this official.

I've been thinking about the wording. It's not a big deal really but I'd like it to be short and clear. I'm thinking something like this:

Mono = cards cost 1 type of element
Duo = cards cost 2 types of elements
Trio = cards cost 3 types of elements
Rainbow = cards cost 4 or more types of elements

Does this work? Or am I missing something?

I think you'd need to add "To be played" as simply leaving it as "Cost" means that you do not specifically state skills do not matter. Fallen Druids do "Cost" Life.

[Scaredgirl]

Ok, we need to make this official.

I've been thinking about the wording. It's not a big deal really but I'd like it to be short and clear. I'm thinking something like this:

Mono = cards cost 1 type of element
Duo = cards cost 2 types of elements
Trio = cards cost 3 types of elements
Rainbow = cards cost 4 or more types of elements

Does this work? Or am I missing something?

I think you'd need to add "To be played" as simply leaving it as "Cost" means that you do not specifically state skills do not matter. Fallen Druids do "Cost" Life.

Yes, you are right.

[jmizzle7]

I think you'd need to add "To be played" as simply leaving it as "Cost" means that you do not specifically state skills do not matter. Fallen Druids do "Cost" Life.

That just goes back to the point I made about intent to use creature abilities. If creature/permanent abilities are counted towards the number of elements used, then intent to use said abilities plays a part. I can put Fallen Druids in my deck with absolutely no way to make Life quantum, but if I have Life mark or some way to generate the quanta to use its ability, that would change the function of the deck. That is your point, no? This is a perfect way to categorize some decks like Essence's "mono" Water deck with Bone Towers that clearly relies heavily on Death quanta, or Earth/Time Shrieker Spam, or Flying Eternity with Anubis, or "mono" Air with Unstable Gas... the list goes on. The only problem is not every deck can fit this kind of categorical definition. An example of a deck that doesn't fit in this system is a mono Entropy deck with Supernova, as it has access to all types of quantum from within the Entropy element. We need to either leave our current definition alone with all the confusion that goes along with it, or go back to the drawing board and come up with something that works better.

[Xiahou Dun]

That is your point, no?

No. It isn't.

Please don't abuse the formatting options. -Daxx

Coloured text is abuse now? : D

[Scaredgirl]

We need to either leave our current definition alone with all the confusion that goes along with it, or go back to the drawing board and come up with something that works better.

There's no confusion with the system Lanidrak suggested first. It's a perfect system in all possible scenarios and there is zero room for interpretation.

This "intent" thing you propose, now that's confusion. Not only do I need to look at the cards, but I also need to think about what the person is intending to do with them.

With Lanidrak's system all you need to do it look at the top right corner of the card and the rest is math. It's can't get any simpler than that.

[jmizzle7]

I'm not proposing anything. I'm just saying that there is confusion no matter what. I've already had to move a deck from Duo-Decks to Mono-Decks, so it's clear our forum members either aren't aware of our definition, or don't understand it.

[Scaredgirl]

I'm not proposing anything. I'm just saying that there is confusion no matter what. I've already had to move a deck from Duo-Decks to Mono-Decks, so it's clear our forum members either aren't aware of our definition, or don't understand it.

Well, we haven't made it public yet so how could they understand it?

Those sections still have the old descriptions.

[jmizzle7]

Well, let's make it public! lol

[Scaredgirl]

I'll write a post about this tomorrow. If someone still has a different opinion on the definition or the wording, speak now or forever hold your peace.

[Daxx]

My only opinion on this whole topic is that a concrete definition isn't going to be useful in dealing with the edge cases, as was demonstrated by the "mono-water" thread.

[Scaredgirl]

My only opinion on this whole topic is that a concrete definition isn't going to be useful in dealing with the edge cases, as was demonstrated by the "mono-water" thread.

Mono-water?

[Delreich]

This one: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,2613.0.html

I still don't think quanta usage should have anything to do with this, but I guess that's just me...