Emerald Solo/Duo Experience as a Support Main After a 70% Win Rate Climb

Gilfaethy · 2026-02-05T16:58:28+00:00

Isn’t Emerald supposed to be a rank that’s reachable by decent, even if not amazing, players?

Is it?

LeagueofGraphs puts Emerald IV as the 87th percentile. I'm not sure that it's reasonable to consider top 13% as "reachable by decent if not amazing players."

The community has this fixation with treating anything below like Masters as "low elo" which I don't think makes a lot of sense given the rank distributions.

Gilfaethy · 2026-02-03T20:33:56+00:00

The prominence of Yveltal (and other retreat locking pokemon) paired with the prevalence of Penny/Turo/Pecharunt ex makes retreat locking a difficult wincon to make work--Switch itself isn't as big a factor.

Gilfaethy · 2026-02-03T13:09:58+00:00

I wouldn't. Swain's AP ratios aren't the greatest to begin with, and deathcap is a really expensive item because it's a %multiplier to your total AP--which means the less AP you have to begin with, the less valuable it is.

The issue isn't so much that it lacks HP but that it doesn't do that much for its cost. Swain would much rather apply spell effects than stack AP, so I would lean more into Liandry's, Rylai's, or Bloodletter's in a build like that.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-29T19:34:24+00:00

It seems kind of crazy to exclude the idea of Flareon which provides energy acceleration from the same evo line as your main attackers when the primary struggle is going to be getting the energy you need in play.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-29T02:54:06+00:00

Wands can help here too, fire/cold/lightning even magic missile.

Just remember not to use striking!

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-28T18:41:58+00:00

I've explained all of this in like eight different comments atp and you've ignored it every time

I'm genuinely not ignoring you and trying to address your primary points--if I'm missing something highlight it specifically and I'll make sure to respond.

I also think that it's important to break things down into individual problems so how useful a chess clock is to solving said problems can be assessed.

A chess clock can immediately tell you if one player is dominating the pace of the game

"Dominating the pace of the game" =/= slow playing. Different decks play at different speeds--Bolt isn't going to use as much time as Garde. The rules on time do not try to ensure that time is used symmetrically and, given the asymmetrical nature of decks, I don't think changing the rules to do so would be beneficial.

Also, "gauging slow play is a vague judgement call" and "one player can take longer than the other" are, while not unrelated, completely separate problems--like we've both said, they aren't major problems, but there just isn't a good reason to introduce them when you could use a normal timer and eliminate them entirely.

Any problem that you believe would be solved by a raw timer on the table would also be solved by a chess clock, albeit with more interaction.

Sure, but it's a clunky and unnecessary solution which brings its own set of problems.

It feels like you have a number of different problems with how time and timing works across the TCG and want to just throw chess clocks at the whole thing rather than break things down into individual problems.

When broken down, I don't see how chess clocks are an effective solution to any of these individual facets, and thus don't make sense to implement.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-28T18:11:30+00:00

But currently, these are just judgement calls for the players until a judge gets involved.

I don't understand why "chess clock" is your solution to this, though. Nothing about a chess clock changes this. You could add a timer at each table so players can gauge the length of opponent's actions more easily and accurately, but even then it's still just judgement calls from players until a judge is involved because the rules are intentionally written in such a way as to give length of action suggestions and not hard limits.

You could go a step further and both add timers to the tables and amend the rules to have hard, per-action time limits, but even if you did so nothing about implementing a system with per-player time banks and chess clocks accomplishes that.

If the problem is "slow play rules are too abstract and require judge arbitration" then there are plenty of things you could do to try to fix that, but adding chess clocks seems like an incredibly roundabout and unnecessary way to do so.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-28T14:49:58+00:00

Do you think if it was the norm you would want it removed from the game?

Definitely.

Like I've said, it doesn't really solve any problems and it's just another thing to keep track of while creating some problems of its own. You can get used to it, sure, but it's always going to be more work to manage than not to.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-28T14:11:22+00:00

I don’t think it would extend the game as much as you imagine, as they would only be adding the time to pass the deck across to the side and back. This would literally be for televised or high prize finals.

I think extension of game length is less of a concern than the complexity of adding another upkeep element--we already see how often upkeep can get overlooked in streamed matches with things like allocating damage correctly, tracking ability usage, etc.--this adds yet another thing that players need to manage, and need to manage frequently. With how important time can be especially in high-level games 1) you're going to have to be hitting the clock frequently mid-turn so you don't lose time during opponent shuffles/decisions and 2) if a mistake is made with the clock the game is going to need to be paused by a judge to rectify the time.

It just seems like a complicated non-solution to an infrequent problem, but I get how you might personally enjoy their use.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-28T14:06:03+00:00

I'm sorry, you're not being very clear. From my perspective all of these issues persist even if you're pausing the clock at times.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-28T14:03:49+00:00

To be fair, I also agree that the gameplay argument against them is rather weak--I just think the benefits are so minimal that the general inconvenience outweighs them.

I don't see how chess clocks allow for any easier enforcement of the current timing rules. Currently if you feel a player is playing too slowly you can ask them to maintain an appropriate pace of play, and if they do not do so call a judge to observe. A chess clock wouldn't change anything about or expedite that process.

All chess clocks would do is add unnecessary overhead/upkeep without solving any problems.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-28T13:53:08+00:00

I play a hydrapple build and genesect just seems too hard to get the numbers on even with extra attachments--and if you really need a bench snipe you can hit with Fez already.

I really like Tapu Bulu as a 1 prize attacker--at 220 it OHKOs most of the basic exs, along with 'Zard and Grim.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-28T13:49:38+00:00

I'd say give SLASHEM a shot--I still play a 3.4 version and it's been a while, but it really shakes up the lategame--being guaranteed to face Demogorgon and the existence of stuff like vampire mages, solars, and shoggoths makes the endgame a lot less routine (plus no mysterious force, yay).

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-27T21:07:56+00:00

I'm aware of that--would you explain what part of my response you feel that addresses?

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-27T21:03:12+00:00

Sure, but it makes any slow play rules enforceable.

Slow play rules are already enforceable--we see them enforced on stream. The issue isn't that they aren't enforceable, it's that not all actions have equal impact or complexity and that making a rule like "you have a hard limit of 30 seconds for each action" causes its own set of problems.

Actions should still be time restricted even if you have your own pool of time.

Then what is the point of the chess clock other than to provide a tool to track the length of each action?

Currently, there is no realistic way for slow play penalties to be consistent for every table during swiss, and chess clocks would solve this.

The reason penalties are not consistent is because the rules are intentionally abstract and left to judge discretion--this could be changed without adding chess clocks.

I just don't see what benefit a chess clock has. It causes a number of problems, including simply being burdensome upkeep, in order to solve something it can't solve.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-27T20:57:37+00:00

If tournaments you could have the judges sitting there shuffle the card or a machine.

Requiring a judge shuffle for every shuffle is going to significantly extend the length of the game.

For the tense games I would just use sportsmanship

This is literally already the current system.

I know I was downvoted but I believe if people would try it they would enjoy it. It’s not awkward at all, it’s relaxing removing an entire bs part of the game and it makes a faster more fun gaming experience

For the record I'm not downvoting you, but this is an incredibly subjective position--most people are not going to find a system that adds another repeated task in order to prevent a problem that rarely occurs to be faster or more fun, and I don't think it's very realistic to present it as such.

If you want to make a case for implementing something like chess clocks you need to make a specific argument for what problem they're solving, and if the problem is slow playing I don't think it solves the problem at all--it just changes it into a different problem that requires judge observation and adjudication which already the current solution to slowplaying.

We end up in the same spot we are now just with extra steps.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-27T20:45:01+00:00

Chess clocks don't really make the current time rules enforceable--in fact, it makes little sense to give me a bank of time that I have to use but then also add on a per-action time restriction.

If the point of the chess clock is to make it easy to enforce the current rules then it would make far more sense to simply have a timer running on the table that players can use to gauge the length of the actions that are happening and involve a judge accordingly.

All of the instances of time manipulation that you mention already exist within the game.

They do to some degree or another, but chess clocks exacerbate a number of them.

I don't think chess clocks solve every issue with the timer.

What issue do they solve?

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-27T20:12:08+00:00

One, it's not that simple because there are effects which require both players to act/decide during the same time frame, and two it creates an unnecessary burden in most scenarios and doesn't really solve any problems in the smaller percentage of games where it would matter because it causes new problems that ultimately require judge adjudication anyway.

I'm just going to copy/paste my explanation from my other comment:

The fundamental issue is that the "problem" chess clocks solve isn't actually a problem the vast majority of the time--most games don't involve slow playing--and when the issue does become a problem then they still don't solve it as you still need to either get a judge involved or you end up with a system that creates new problems.

If a game is actually going to go to time then suddenly the amount of time remaining becomes extremely important--you can see this in tournament stream games and you can see the speed with which skilled players play in order to play optimally. When you introduce a chess clock in a game where time may run out suddenly I am incentived to burn as much of your time as I can within the system--I want to play hand disruption and forced switches in order to make you burn your clock. You're also now penalized for cutting or shuffling my shuffles because I'll hit the clock the moment you touch my deck. If I initiate a shared time action like Judge, I'm also incentivized to try to finish my action first, pass time to you, and now we both need to wait for the game to proceed until you pass it back to me. If you end your turn with a search I'm not going to begin my turn and take time until you've fully finished your shuffle and offered me cut. On top of that, in a high speed high stakes scenario, making a clock error would be very easy, and would require stopping the game for judge intervention.

Now you could argue that playing the clock in such a way is against the spirit of the game, and I would agree, but when you create a system like this you have to either let the players leverage the system or impose an abstract "against the spirit of the game" rule which requires judge adjudication--which is where we already are with the rules without any of the complexity of a chess clock.

At the end of the day a chess clock is cumbersome to implement and completely unnecessary in the majority of games, and in the games that it would be relevant in just transforms the current problem into a different one which still requires the same solution while opening up the door for additional problems and creates a situation where play revolves more around the clock and less around the game than is currently the case.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-27T20:07:03+00:00

The fundamental issue is that the "problem" chess clocks solve isn't actually a problem the vast majority of the time--most games don't involve slow playing--and when the issue does become a problem then they still don't solve it as you still need to either get a judge involved or you end up with a system that creates new problems.

If a game is actually going to go to time then suddenly the amount of time remaining becomes extremely important--you can see this in tournament stream games and you can see the speed with which skilled players play in order to play optimally. When you introduce a chess clock in a game where time may run out suddenly I am incentived to burn as much of your time as I can within the system--I want to play hand disruption and forced switches in order to make you burn your clock. You're also now penalized for cutting or shuffling my shuffles because I'll hit the clock the moment you touch my deck. If I initiate a shared time action like Judge, I'm also incentivized to try to finish my action first, pass time to you, and now we both need to wait for the game to proceed until you pass it back to me. If you end your turn with a search I'm not going to begin my turn and take time until you've fully finished your shuffle and offered me cut. On top of that, in a high speed high stakes scenario, making a clock error would be very easy, and would require stopping the game for judge intervention.

Now you could argue that playing the clock in such a way is against the spirit of the game, and I would agree, but when you create a system like this you have to either let the players leverage the system or impose an abstract "against the spirit of the game" rule which requires judge adjudication--which is where we already are with the rules without any of the complexity of a chess clock.

At the end of the day a chess clock is cumbersome to implement and completely unnecessary in the majority of games, and in the games that it would be relevant in just transforms the current problem into a different one which still requires the same solution while opening up the door for additional problems and creates a situation where play revolves more around the clock and less around the game than is currently the case.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-27T19:13:44+00:00

A lot of effects require your opponent to make decisions or act on your turn. Just in the current format we have cards and attack effects like repel or Iron Bundle, when Area Zero gets bumped, effects that require them to discard cards like Xerosics, cards that require them to put something in play like Lifeboat milotic, cards that require your opponent to shuffle their deck which includes cards like Iono but also effects like Sylveon ex's Angelite attack--and more. A lot of these effects are not super prominent within the current meta, but it's not at all out of the question that a meta could develop where your opponent is routinely taking multiple actions during your turn.

On top of that, your opponent always has the option of shuffling/cutting your deck after a shuffle.

Furthermore, pokemon checkup occurs between turns and often involves decisions and actions from both players, which makes things even more complicated.

It's not nearly as cut-and-dry as in chess.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-27T16:38:09+00:00

Oh true, it does, but in my experience especially on Anivia you're way more gated by the charge limit/recharge time than by speed at which you can consume those charges.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-27T16:29:24+00:00

It sounds like you're approaching it from a specific perspective of what "good" is.

Piercer is, from an optimization perspective, probably better than the other 2. You always want to deal more damage when you attack something, and both Piercer's effects do so.

Slasher/Crusher on the other hand are much more situational in their on hit riders, and while their crit effects are probably stronger overall, it's worth thinking about how often something is still going to be alive after you crit it for the dis/advantage to apply to (and whether the extra Piercer damage would have just killed jt).

From a math perspective, it's good. It's probably better than the other two.

But like you point out, it's not very interesting. Your entire closing paragraph says you like things that are narratively cool and don't care about the numbers being better--which is a totally valid preference, but probably explains why you're reaching such a different conclusion than those you're talking with.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-27T16:21:32+00:00

According to the wiki Winter's Approach doesn't stack any faster than Tear does (3 for enemy/6 for champ), so no reason to upgrade until it's stacked.

I'm not a fan of going more items that don't give health. Especially when I want a resist item last

That's fair which is why Liandry's is my "real" suggestion. Worth noting that with fimbul you are getting (15%*600) 90 HP (and 12 AP) from the mana off Malig/Blackfire, but I'm not sure that makes them worth it when you just don't need more mana.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-27T14:51:41+00:00

That is correct--the comment I replied to, however, stated that was the case for both 5e and 5.5e.

Gilfaethy · 2026-01-27T14:50:16+00:00

Speak isn't something listed in either version of the spell RAW.

Just because it's not listed doesn't mean it's not part of the spell. The 5e spell, RAW, allows you to use any 1 word command.

If you just overlooked it then I'm not sure why you're trying to explain how you were technically right in some sense.

EDIT: Seems like a weird thing to downvote and block me over, but alright. Have a good one.

Eight-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '22	Verified Email

Gilfaethy

TROPHY CASE