Seastan... barely have the ability to make a deck without it.

Well, that hurts. But really, how do you make this logical connection? If someone is building a power solo deck they are obviously going to use the best cards. That doesn't mean it's impossible to build good decks without them, it's just that there's no compelling reason to.

In other news, I normally take the bus to work. From this we can conclude that I'm addicted to public transit and also don't know how to ride a bike.

I get where you are coming from.

Thematically it's probably the most controversial card in the game. Theme-loving players, such as myself, have had a problem with this card since the core set. Eventually my own mind errata-ed the cardname to 'Support of the Gondor' and that's the end of that. It's the only suggestion I got I'm afraid.

As for the power of the card...

First off, errata on this card would be fairly useless. After all, errata is usually given to prevent certain game-states from occuring. And while SoG is the easiest resource acceleration card in the game, it is not the only one.

In the Galdor/Cirdan deck I've been using lately, getting the Zigil Miner/ Stargazer combo up is so easy due to how fast I'm going through my deck, that it's essentially just another SoG (3 Zigies, 2 stargazers and Narya works unsuprisingly well ). Gloin has reached his real potential and getting 60+ resources on him without SoG is business as usual. And resource-happy heroes such as Arwen and Denethor have arrived. In other words: without SoG in the game, we can still create tons of resources. Alternatively, Caldara and other 'put into play' effects have also been trending lately (.

So at this point, all SoG does, is allow less dedicated Uber decks to catch up with the power decks that are already available. So I would argue the opposite: in today's metagame, SoG actually balances the game more!

As for holding back the Gondor trait...

I wouldn't draw any links between it's succes and Gondor's waning. Sure, Gondor would be more popular if the card only went on them, but honestly, Gondor right now is just an 'adjusted for balance' version of the dwarves. It's underdeveloped as a trait and it's 'powers up through resources' mechanic is barely developed.

Back to the power thing...

So you've noticed that most power decks include SoG and concluded that it is used in all decks and that the current quests require resource generation which removes the aspect of resource gathering. First of all, if it truely removed the resource gathering part, people would simply play more expensive cards. Gandalfs for everyone. That doesn't happen, so it's not that powerful. Second, and this is the most important thing, using SoG requires you to DRAW it and PLAY it before you can reap it's power. And if your deck can only win if you have it in your opening hand, you'll not be winning much games. Every powerdeck needs to be able to survive without a SoG in case you don't draw it. This is why I prefer to deckbuild without SoG initially, then include it once I'm certain my deck holds up well enough if I don't draw it. And while Seastan may snort SoG like crack cocaine from a Good Harvest, all his decks that run SoG are capable of standing their own before he draws into it. And lately the quests have gotten better in punishing turtle-style decks by requiring players to go 100% from turn 1. SoG takes time to really influence the game.

Which leads to the final fair point you make: quests expect you to run SoG. This seems to be true for solo. Quests have grown with the power curve of the game. Combat power (T), Willpower (S), card draw (L) and resource acceleration (L) have all become nessecities to win against the harder quests solo. That means each sphere have lost to spherebleeding some aspect that it used to dominate. I used to hate that, but having played through the last cycle multiple times, I have to admit that it is required in order to keep up. And that's not nessecarily a bad thing. Turtleing ( slowly building up an army, then stomping through the quest) was the norm in the early days, now the encounter deck also builds up. Playing SoG doesn't mean you'll auto-win the late game anymore. And that too, is a good thing. But it's only possible if the encounter deck is STRONGER than a random SoG deck.

So yeah, I get what you're saying. But I think SoG is too easily replacable by other cards to change the meta-game by removing it, helps 'weaker' decks compete with others, is not as powerful as you think it is due to the low chance of drawing it and decks need to be build to surivive without it. I also approve of encounter decks being powerful late game so it deals with the turtle strategy without finicky time-counters (how I hate those things!).

Once upon a time, there was a really broken card in this game. Thousand times stronger than Steward, and also from Leadership Sphere. Fortunetly, Sauron nerfed it by smashing it into pieces.

Yup, this card is Sword that WAS Broken.

So, a few weeks ago, I decided to print myself a physical copy of CotR's Keeping Count variant from PrinterStudio. Because the cost of the cards only changes at certain thresholds, I had a few extra cards that I could do something else with, so I decided to print my own personal errata for Steward of Gondor:

[image snipped]

Wow, that's some quality prints. How it looks on the back? Can you show?

Yeah, I'm pretty happy with the quality of PrinterStudio. The cards are a shade darker than the originals, comparable to how FFG's POD cards don't quite match with respect to color balance either. They're waxier than FFG's cards too. I probably wouldn't use them without card sleeves.

This ^ is freaking righteous. Hats off to you sir, not only did you think of this before me.... you went as far to print off cards!!! I'd almost pay you to personally mail one of these to each of the game's designers, and maybe 3 for myself.

Well thank you! I wouldn't want to sell them to anyone, though--I printed them for myself!

For what it's worth, the reason I was motivated to house rule this card was to give Gondor more of an identity. I feel like we've recently hit a critical mass of alternative resource acceleration cards such that Steward of Gondor is no longer required in most decks, even for high-level solo play. Limiting the card to Gondor heroes tightens up the Gondor synergy and carves out a niche for all of the different resource acceleration cards in different decks.

I don't know that I would go so far as to call for an official errata , though. Steward of Gondor has been a core mechanic for the game for so long that I'm not sure I can fully fathom how it would change the early game without the full modern cardpool. I'd prefer if the card were designed this way at the start, but at this point I think it might be too late to fix in an official capacity.

​2. Actually, the errata I propose doesn't even really nerf it's power... it just confines it to an archetype. If you want the tremendous resource acceleration of SOG, gotta find some way to incorporate Gondor into your deck. This is almost too easy with the new Leadership Denethor.... as he's set up to do exactly that. And that brings me to my next point.....

​The thing that offends me the most about this card is what it does to the "Gondor" trait archetype. I really believe it's the reason that the designers have not been able to give us a compelling reason to build Gondor decks in 4 deluxe boxes, 4 chapter back cycles, and 4 saga releases of player cards.

​It's clear to me that Gondor was supposed to be the resource generating/ultra defense archetype.... sort of how the Dunedain are the enemy engagement bonus archetype, the Silvans are the "in and out" archetype, etc. However, the most powerful resource generating tool that Gondor has, is available to everybody! Not only that, but the damned thing actually GIVES the Gondor trait... meaning whoever SOG gets played on can take advantage of all the Gondor defense/resource synergy.

​Why would you ever build a Gondor deck when the best that the Gondor archetype has can easily be incorporated into any archetype with 3 cards (6 if no leadership heroes)? That in my mind is the biggest problem.... and the reason I suggest the errata that I do.

I think you're right about connecting resources to the Gondor archetype -- LeBoromir and Visionary Leadership, the key cards for a Gondor deck, require an unspent resource. You also see the unspent resource connection with Blood of Numenor and Gondorian Fire. Add to that the heavy leadership tilt to Gondor allies, and it's clear that Gondor wants lots of resources -- Steward of Gondor is arguably more important to Gondor decks than any other type, and has the fringe benefit of making its recipient eligible for generic Gondorian buffs.

But slapping Steward/Blood/Fire on a single overpowered hero doesn't make it a "Gondor deck", even if the hero you are slapping it on is the very Gondorian TaBoromir. If you're not playing Visionary Leadership, it's not a Gondor deck. Why would you build a Gondor deck when Steward/Blood/Fire/Shield find themselves in all sorts of power decks? How about because you want to play a *Gondor deck*, and a power deck without Visionary Leadership and a host of Gondorian allies isn't a Gondor deck? Because you don't compete with other players, there's no requirement to play the most powerful deck possible, and even if a super TaBoromir deck is provably more efficient than a LeBoromir Gondor deck, the Gondor deck will present a different experience and is therefore worth playing. All the designers need to do is make sure that Gondor as a trait is *viable*, which I think they've done. We're actually getting cards and heroes that work well in a Gondor deck in this cycle, IMO.

Would having SoG require Gondor trait make Gondor decks more popular? I doubt it. To be sure, it'd increase the popularity of Gondor *heroes*, but putting Gondor heroes in other archtypes to get Steward of Gondor access doesn't strike me as a vast improvement. (It would discourage non-Gondor heroes in actual Gondor decks, since you can't get Visionary Leadership buff and/or LeDenthor transfer to them as easily.) Power decks wanting Steward of Gondor would find heroes like TaBoromir and LeDenethor even more attractive -- will this really encourage greater diversity of decks?

It would also make the core leadership cards for new players substantial less powerful, and I think that's a bad thing.

Clearly the only solution is to errata Tactics Boromir to remove his Gondor trait.

The Gondor allies are a conflicted bunch in my head anyways. Most of them don't have much of an attack power so the +1 attack from Boromir is making up for that. They are also pretty weak at questing, so Visionary Leadership has to make up for that. They chump defend like champions, so Horn of Gondor makes sense. I feel a lot of their allies are relatively expensive for their limited usefulness, plus the extra requirement for having spare resources to get the boosts - means Steward of Gondor fits that bill. Looking at the Gondor allies, I typically don't get too inspired to play that theme. Looking through the Silvans, Ents and Rohan, I do. I will say the LeAragorn, LeBoromir + Erestor is an awesome and fun deck to play, but it isn't a fully Gondor themed deck since I'm using non-Gondor heroes. (Note that Sword that was Broken is also fairly necessary to make sure you can muster enough will power out of these rather crappy Gondor allies).

That said, they are getting there with heroes but I don't think making SoG a Gondor only attachment will help push people to build that direction since the allies are still so scattered in what they do.

Thought about it some more. Has someone tried to let SoG enter Play exhausted? This way you actually have to pay it as you don't get your 2 ressources back instantly. Therefore you will miss out on some allies/attachments/Events, what can be a huge difference in a game that lasts for 5-10 rounds.

Boromir-decks with Fire and Blood most likely would still function as they do now, since they get so insane once they are up and running and their other Combo pieces cost 0.

I play pure solo and nightmare mode most of the time (except the saga quests), and it is extremely difficult to build a powerful solo deck without SoG. And there are limites, I think, to restrain yourself from playing an ''unthematic'' card like SoG and not having fun playing, knowing that you'll loose 99 % of the time!

As with every other card in any card TCG/CCG/LCG, if you don't like it or it cramps Your style, don't use it!

I don't think that's his problem. The real problem is that if you want to look on ringsdb and 75% of the posted decks rely on a card you don't want to use because you think it's design is bad then you have a very small amount of decks you're interested in. That would change if this card would receive an errata.

If 75% of the posted decks actually require Steward of Gondor to function properly, then what would change with an errata is that 75% of the posted decks would no longer function properly. This is not a good thing.

However, the actual percentage is likely to be somewhat lower, since most non-leadership decks don't include Steward for obvious reasons. There are 86 pages of published decks at ringsdb, and 37 pages of decks with Steward of Gondor. It's actually not even the most commonly used card (39 pages of decks with Test of Will), though it obviously is a very well-used card. Of course, with most of those 37 pages of decks, there's more than a fair possibility that you won't have Steward of Gondor in your opening hand, especially if you have only one core set, so I very much doubt SoG is *required*. For the few power decks that are guaranteed to get SoG quickly into your possession, I very much doubt someone who doesn't like playing Steward of Gondor because of its design would be interested in playing those decks in the first place. If Steward of Gondor is a problem when playing solo, it's clearly a self-inflicted problem.

If 75% of decks can't function without it, isn't that indicative to the fact it may be a bit too good to begin with? As you mentioned, SoG is not used in that percentage of decks, but SoG is it widely popular. Who cares if it's second to Test of Will on use (another OP card IMO), the fact it's so widely used, even in decks that don't even include Leadership is a sign it might be a bit too good. But watch, FFG will not nerf SoG and nerf A Good Harvest instead haha.

As with every other card in any card TCG/CCG/LCG, if you don't like it or it cramps Your style, don't use it!

I don't think that's his problem. The real problem is that if you want to look on ringsdb and 75% of the posted decks rely on a card you don't want to use because you think it's design is bad then you have a very small amount of decks you're interested in. That would change if this card would receive an errata.

If 75% of the posted decks actually require Steward of Gondor to function properly, then what would change with an errata is that 75% of the posted decks would no longer function properly. This is not a good thing.

However, the actual percentage is likely to be somewhat lower, since most non-leadership decks don't include Steward for obvious reasons. There are 86 pages of published decks at ringsdb, and 37 pages of decks with Steward of Gondor. It's actually not even the most commonly used card (39 pages of decks with Test of Will), though it obviously is a very well-used card. Of course, with most of those 37 pages of decks, there's more than a fair possibility that you won't have Steward of Gondor in your opening hand, especially if you have only one core set, so I very much doubt SoG is *required*. For the few power decks that are guaranteed to get SoG quickly into your possession, I very much doubt someone who doesn't like playing Steward of Gondor because of its design would be interested in playing those decks in the first place. If Steward of Gondor is a problem when playing solo, it's clearly a self-inflicted problem.

If 75% of decks can't function without it, isn't that indicative to the fact it may be a bit too good to begin with? As you mentioned, SoG is not used in that percentage of decks, but SoG is it widely popular. Who cares if it's second to Test of Will on use (another OP card IMO), the fact it's so widely used, even in decks that don't even include Leadership is a sign it might be a bit too good. But watch, FFG will not nerf SoG and nerf A Good Harvest instead haha.

I don't think it's the case that 75% of decks can't function without it -- like I said, if a deck truly can't function without SoG, it also needs accelerated draw -- because without that, half the time you *won't* have Steward of Gondor in your opening hand.

But doesn't being widely popular indicate that a card is "a bit too good"? What it indicates is that the card is both powerful (worth having in your deck), and accessible (able to play in a wide variety of decks). Is that a bad thing? Certainly if there were too many such cards, you could build a generic deck with generic cards, and that wouldn't be much fun. But a small number of staple cards that are useful in a wide variety of decks leaves ample room for deckbuilding, and I think it's no accident that most staple cards are in fact in the Core Set. If the core set didn't have staple cards that were both powerful and general, what hope would new players have of building decent decks with the tiny starting card pool? The shame of the core set isn't that cards like Steward of Gondor and Test of Will are too good -- it's that cards like Power in the Earth are too bad. Cards that are "too good" can be easily ignored by thematic players or players seeking a greater challenge -- and by this point, there are *plenty* of alternatives to Steward of Gondor for resource acceleration. If Steward of Gondor is still the easiest and best, it's certainly not *required* with a full card pool. Cards that are too bad are no use to anyone.

Here's how the staple cards (cards I consider to be generally useful in any deck containing the appropirate sphere) stack up at ringsdb in terms of pages:

87 all published decks

44 core Gandalf

39 A Test of Will

37 Steward of Gondor

32 Unexpected Courage

28 Sneak Attack

28 Daeron's Runes

26 Feint

22 Warden of Healing

19 Galadhrim's Greeting

18 Arwen Undomiel ally

17 Hasty Stroke

16 A Burning Brand

15 Quickbeam ally

13 Treebeard ally

13 Gleowine ally

8 Honour Guard

I know Honour Guard isn't on anyone else's list of staples but mine, but I love those guys and would gladly find room for them in any tactics deck. There are other staples if you have a hero match, especially these two:

23 Elrond's Counsel

20 Light of Valinor

Should all the staple cards be nerfed to "balance" the game? What are you trying to balance it with? Decks vary widely in effectiveness, and quests vary widely in difficulty. There's no magic level to shoot for anywhere. And when we fall back on popularity, it's important to remember what all those decks on ringsdb represent -- decks that players enjoyed playing and/or creating enough to share them with other players. If deckmakers generally *like* to play with Steward of Gondor, how does taking one of their favorite cards away improve the game?

I recommend reading this article.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/223439-a-brief-history-of-resource-acceleration-in-lotr-lcg/

The conclusion is that SoG will be toned down with a lot of choice for ressource generation. And even if SoG IS the best card, having to find it first isn't reliable enough, so it's just like a very good draw, but you can eventually play well without ever drawing it.

Each time I see the preview for the new cards, I see Unexpected Courage / readying effect suffer the same fate, and same for Burning Brand / shadow management.

Heh "Support of the Gondor" sounds pretty awesome actually, its the same first letter for cards like "Doors of Durin" and "Steward" even have same number of letters as "Support". Makes more sense than Gloin suddenly becoming Steward of Gondor too.

I'll admit that it requires a little themeblindness to have SOG in my Sam deck, however I think limiting it to only gondor takes away one of its most thematic uses. When Aragorn arrives in Minas Tirith he gets the resources of gondor and becomes "one of them".

I rather like this change, though maybe it should still cost 2.

Entering play exhausted compensates for the cost reduction.

Instead of errata, why not release a different unique card called Steward of Gondor with different abilities (maybe a different sphere) that would compete with the Core set version? This would not be so different from getting multiple versions of unique heroes/allies.

Of course, a new "Steward of Gondor" card would need to be situationally better than the current one (perhaps depending on solo/multiplayer or deck archetype) without being universally better. There are several ways the designers could represent the wealth/knowledge of Gondor with such an attachment. For instance, they could print a Lore Steward of Gondor that attaches to a Gondor hero and exhausts itself and/or the hero to either use Henamarth's or Lore Denethor's ability. A spirit version might exhaust to ready another attachment, replicating the ability of Unexpected Courage for attachments.

Instead of errata, why not release a different unique card called Steward of Gondor with different abilities (maybe a different sphere) that would compete with the Core set version? This would not be so different from getting multiple versions of unique heroes/allies.

Of course, a new "Steward of Gondor" card would need to be situationally better than the current one (perhaps depending on solo/multiplayer or deck archetype) without being universally better. There are several ways the designers could represent the wealth/knowledge of Gondor with such an attachment. For instance, they could print a Lore Steward of Gondor that attaches to a Gondor hero and exhausts itself and/or the hero to either use Henamarth's or Lore Denethor's ability. A spirit version might exhaust to ready another attachment, replicating the ability of Unexpected Courage for attachments.

I shudder to think of the power of a card by the title Steward of Gondor that would displace the Core Set version.

I.M.O steward is not even the problem. The problem are some cards going with it and how those cards can switch from good to O.P.

I got two in mind. BLood of Numenor and Gondorian Fire.

As others said already, nerfing it is useless. It's a bit like nerfing Black Lotus in Magic after all those years... Pointless really.

They already nerfed a ressource generator, (and badly (i.m.o), wich was the horn of gondor : yeah i said baldy nerfed coz' they could have wrote "limit 2x per turn" or "1x per phase" or something the like.

And they did that for... 1 single deck abusing it... ! Good Job FFG... -> to me, this was the award winner for the "Best absurd nerf" !

To be honest, i would rather have some reworks on some low heroes that are not played or unbalanced (like Bilbo for exemple... lower his threat by 2 would help him a lot i reckon)

So about that steward again.. I would also say that this kind of "O.P" card is needed in a card game. Every card game got those cards.

And to be honest, without it, a lot of decks would not work at all. And reducing that ratio. would defenatly hurt the game and community in a real bad way.

So yeah, a lot of people plays it, and a lot of people don't ! (in a 4p game, just one steward is on table.. And well.. Other players are not complaining...)

To me steward is more a solo (needed) card ! That help against those big hard quests.

Coz some quest are that hard, that you need the best to succed them. And not only steward.. We could also speak about Test of Will and the almost obligation to play Spirit in solo ! (to me, this is a much biggest problem than that steward...)

About Thematic... You said "the worst thematic" ? really ? I can gave you some other "unthematic" or stuff that makes me laughed a lot in this game instead of this one

How about Tree beard that put some burning brand to his own "bones" ?

Or do you know that joke starting like : Once upon a time, there's was an Ent on a boat...

How about having two mounts... ? i mean... you put the 1st mount on the horse, then you climb them both ? To me it's a bit like a guy driving 2 car at the same time... Some sort...

If Steward of gondor hurt your Thematic love, i suggest you to never watch those Bilbo the Hobbits movie ! ^^ (they're bad actually so i'm really suggesting you to never watch those ^^) (ok landscapes are nice, of course they are ! New Zealand is wonderful !)

Well, i will stop here for those exemple but i got many more.

To me steward has to stay as it is.

Not like we had'nt some other ressources generators or mechanic that just does'nt need that steward to work propely !

Instead of all that, i would strongly recommand to ffg to rework some lower cards nor heroes ! (wich they never will of course )


Peace and Serenity.

Ao.

They already nerfed a ressource generator, (and badly (i.m.o), wich was the horn of gondor : yeah i said baldy nerfed coz' they could have wrote "limit 2x per turn" or "1x per phase" or something the like.

And they did that for... 1 single deck abusing it... ! Good Job FFG... -> to me, this was the award winner for the "Best absurd nerf" !

Another unthematic interaction to add to your list: "My Silvans have all quietly gone to hide in the trees to surprise the enemy. Now I blast the Horn of Gondor!"

I think this errata would've come with the new Tactics Imrahil anyway. Too OP otherwise.

They already nerfed a ressource generator, (and badly (i.m.o), wich was the horn of gondor : yeah i said baldy nerfed coz' they could have wrote "limit 2x per turn" or "1x per phase" or something the like.

And they did that for... 1 single deck abusing it... ! Good Job FFG... -> to me, this was the award winner for the "Best absurd nerf" !

Another unthematic interaction to add to your list: "My Silvans have all quietly gone to hide in the trees to surprise the enemy. Now I blast the Horn of Gondor!"

I think this errata would've come with the new Tactics Imrahil anyway. Too OP otherwise.

Well sure Horn needed a nerf, but not one like that... Limit 2x a turn or 1x phase would have been much more interresting. Not to mention that this attachement is "Restricted" ... So now... The card is pretty much dead compare to what a good rework could have done instead. A bit of a shame that FFG don't take some more time to think more about cards creation or nerf... or to just step back sometimes...

They already nerfed a ressource generator, (and badly (i.m.o), wich was the horn of gondor : yeah i said baldy nerfed coz' they could have wrote "limit 2x per turn" or "1x per phase" or something the like.

And they did that for... 1 single deck abusing it... ! Good Job FFG... -> to me, this was the award winner for the "Best absurd nerf" !

Another unthematic interaction to add to your list: "My Silvans have all quietly gone to hide in the trees to surprise the enemy. Now I blast the Horn of Gondor!"

I think this errata would've come with the new Tactics Imrahil anyway. Too OP otherwise.

Well sure Horn needed a nerf, but not one like that... Limit 2x a turn or 1x phase would have been much more interresting. Not to mention that this attachement is "Restricted" ... So now... The card is pretty much dead compare to what a good rework could have done instead. A bit of a shame that FFG don't take some more time to think more about cards creation or nerf... or to just step back sometimes...

They already nerfed a ressource generator, (and badly (i.m.o), wich was the horn of gondor : yeah i said baldy nerfed coz' they could have wrote "limit 2x per turn" or "1x per phase" or something the like.

And they did that for... 1 single deck abusing it... ! Good Job FFG... -> to me, this was the award winner for the "Best absurd nerf" !

Another unthematic interaction to add to your list: "My Silvans have all quietly gone to hide in the trees to surprise the enemy. Now I blast the Horn of Gondor!"

I think this errata would've come with the new Tactics Imrahil anyway. Too OP otherwise.

Why too OP ?

New Prince Imrahil capacity is limited by once per turn. So horn of Gondor is just an attachment which erase the drawback like Light of Valinor for Glorfindel sp.

I don't think it was OP ... but i really think that Prince Imrahil tactic + Horn of Gondor (before errata) was thematic.

I have never played Horn of Gondor with Silvan (no need). But i have played it with Gondor and Rohan, so thematic and now so useless ...

I agree with Aorakis.

Horn of Gondor gets a lot better the more players you have, and I think it's just about perfect thematically now. It makes me wish we could get a Leadership version of it that gained resources when an enemy was defeated.