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 
Did you even read my suggestion?
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 or supernovas to play more than 3 types of cards.
Your poison deck would fall under duo with those classes. Perfect solution. Not quite as elegant, but still not very complex.
In fact, that 500 word essay I wrote? That was all to point out the problem you just stated 
.
Yes, I read it. To me it makes perfect sense and is closest to a "perfect" solution that we can come up with. I was just looking for something more simple. Something that everyone can understand without reading the the sentence 5 times. When I read something like "cards of different elements must have 0 cost or cost other quantum" or "(different) mark fuels cards that cost the mark's quantum", at first it's a real WTF moment. And I know Elements. I can only imagine how newbies react to it.
I doesn't really matter how pro gamers define these decks when they talk about them in chat, etc. I only care about how we define them on this
forum and on
wiki. and for those two places it help to have a clear and simple definition.
72% of voters said mono deck has "Cards of only one element". Mono = one. When your average newbie starts a new thread about his new deck, and reads that definition, I can guarantee that he won't know where to put it, which means confusion and more work for moderators.
Like I said, your definition is how it should be. If you have a simpler way of defining it, great we'll go with that. If not.. I don't know what we're going to do.
@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.
We've had a similar discussion before. You said something, I quoted you, and then you started a long explanation what you
really meant, which totally contradicts what you
actually said. This makes it very difficult to have a discussion because words have a
meaning and you cannot just say anything and later say something totally different. It reminds me of politics and spin doctors: "No, what the president
really meant was that.."
This is what you said about a deck with 30 entropy cards: "If the deck also packs supernovas to fuel mutant abilities, then it is a
rainbow"
That's a direct quote from you. If I after reading that, assume you are talking about a rainbow deck, how is that "jumping into conclusions"? If you didn't mean rainbow, then why did you use the word rainbow?
It's like if you say you have a blue car (when you actually have red one) and then the next day accusing me of jumping into conclusions when I assume you have a blue car.
Here's a rule of thumb:
You think a deck is a rainbow -> Say it's a rainbow
You don't think a deck is a rainbow -> don't say it's a rainbow
It's really that simple.
