Agreed, the fact that SOG becomes necessary for a variety of decks to be viable means that a variety of decks aren't using more interesting and niche forms of resource acceleration. This actually gets at the problem of just how much interesting practical design space is blotted out by one OP card that becomes the crutch.

Since SoG is more powerful than the "more interesting and niche forms of resource acceleration", why do you think that decks that need SoG to be "viable" would still be viable if they used the "more interesting and niche forms of resource acceleration"? And is there really a benefit to driving decks that are on the edge of viability out of existence?

Since "more interesting and niche forms of resource acceleration" already exist, exactly what "practical design space" is being blotted out by Steward of Gondor? I can understand the sentiment that the *many* resource generating player cards in leadership would be more popular if Steward of Gondor didn't exist -- Dori has a similar complaint against Beregond. But the many niche and interesting resource generators and deck accelerators are proof positive that an attractive general-purpose *need not* close that space off against additional cards. It's encouraging to see the designers have recently provided so many alternatives to A Hasty Stroke. I hope A Test of Will alternatives are in the pipeline.

I think it's far too late for this card to be changed. It's a core set staple, and as a unique attachment that exhausts will not be part of any "broken" loops.

Agreed.

Another issue with the proposed errata is that it would severely nerf a multitude of decks that are currently viable into uselessness. The most obvious effect of this, would be decks that are currently strong now and unaffected by the errata would only become more ubiquitous because they would have less competition from other viable decks. Basically, everyone would just play Boromir if they wanted to get a high win rate...instead of being able to use a variety of decks.

I don't see anything wrong with that. If a deck is so reliant on the card that it will be useless if an errata hits, then for one, the card was too powerful to begin with and finally, that's the very definition of a crutch. We saw Horn of Gondor get nerfed and that was a total surprise (but I feel a thematic win). Very late in the game's life too. I suspect SoG is next on the chopping block.

With that said, I confess that a modified SoG that rewards Gondor instead of granting it is a more *interesting* card than the current model. If the core set were redesigned from scratch, the revised Steward of Gondor would be fine as long as they also improved all the cruddy leadership cards that are coasters in the full card pool at the same time.

This part of what you said in particular stood out to me. If we are to assume that design space is being blotted out because of Steward of Gondor, then we must also assume that cards that made it to creation were created with Steward of Gondor in mind. If Steward of Gondor was to be nerfed, every card released at the same time as, and every card released after Steward of Gondor should receive appropriate modifications (that's every card). Not really just leadership cards, in my opinion. That's a tall order.

But hey, I'd be totally fine with Steward of Gondor getting the proposed errata. Just make sure the following changes are also made:

Dain Ironfoot: (Add) After you play a Dwarf from your hand, add 1 resource to Dain Ironfoot's resource pool

Thorin: Collect 1 additional resource for every 5 Dwarves you control

Ori: Draw 1 additional card for every 5 Dwarves you control

Yeah, I don't want that useless card Steward of Gondor clogging my deck if I don't have to!

We saw Horn of Gondor get nerfed and that was a total surprise (but I feel a thematic win). Very late in the game's life too. I suspect SoG is next on the chopping block.

Horn of Gondor, as i said in my previous post in this topic, had the potential for literally game-breaking combos wherein you could draw your entire deck, have infinite resources, 0 threat (and infinitely negative if the game allowed negative threat)

it was part of something that was truly 'broken' because it far exceeded the scope of the design space. other cards were given errata instead of Horn of Gondor, and they basically just now got around to finally fixing the main problem of all of those broken combos.

Steward of Gondor, while a very strong card, has had a hard cap on the amount it impacts the game. it increases its efficacy with a lower player count, and can only be used once per turn because it must exhaust. currently, there's no way to ready attachments outside of the standard action from the refresh phase. it's not part of any game-breaking combo, so i highly doubt we'll see it receive any treatment, especially since Rod of the Steward just came out that seemed almost tailored specifically to work with that card.

At least the revised Steward of Gondor is still a useful card, unlike the errata-ed Horn of Gondor. The new version may be "more thematic", but there's no shortage of thematic coasters. The fate of Horn of Gondor and Master of Lore -- both "fixed" to resolve a "problem" generated chiefly by *other* cards -- is a graphic reminder that errata is not be lightly wished on any card.

Two things:

1, Post-errata Horn is still a good card, at least in the right deck. Anyone who calls it a coaster is flat out wrong and most likely hasn't even tried to use it since the errata - which tbh I think is a general problem, people just assume that a card will be bad post-errata and don't even take the time and effort to find out.

2, Horn of Gondor was absolutely not errata'd to fix a problem generated chiefly by other cards. Horn of Gondor was errata'd to fix a problem generated by Horn of Gondor. Master of Lore, as it happens, was also errata'd to fix a problem chiefly generated by Horn of Gondor.

OK, I'll amend Horn to "niche card" instead of coaster. If you chump-block as a strategy (or share a table with someone who does) it's a good card. If you're playing a direct damage quest that's likely to destroy (not discard!) characters, it's a good card. If neither applies, it's not worth the 1-cost or the restricted slot for a card that may never generate resources. I dropped Horn out of my tactics deck when I replaced Winged Guardian with Defender of Rammas.

I'll also concede that Horn of Gondor was an essential part of the loop (though not the *only* essential part) that led to the unfortunate Master of Lore nerf. Horn of Gondor was not errata-ed at that time, even though an exhaustion cost for Horn of Gondor would have solved the problem while still retaining its original function.

Speaking of original function, I'm not sure I buy the line that the nerf returns HoG to its "intended" function. Horn of Gondor's "leave play" ability was particularly valuable to three archtypes -- Eagles, Rohan, and Silvan. Silvan have *lots* of tools to exploit leaves play, and even without the Horn are plenty powerful. Rohan and Eagles aren't on anyone's overpowered list, and many of the key cards for both came out in the *first cycle*. Eagles are expensive, and I'm sure the designers *fully intended* for Horn of Gondor to recover some of the costs from those disappearing Eagles.

In 2016 when announcing the errata, Caleb Grace writes:

Horn of Gondor has an important place in The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game , particularly in the Core Set experience. The Tactics player is usually expected to engage enemies and defend their attacks in order to defeat them, but this often means that their allies are destroyed by those enemy attacks. Therefore, it is important to the Tactics player to have a way of gaining resources in order to play more allies to replace those losses. Horn of Gondor provides those resources by giving the attached hero a resource whenever a character leaves play. However, because its Response triggers “After a character leaves play…” instead of “After a character is destroyed…” it left its ability open to all types of abuses. The design team has corrected this by changing Horn of Gondor to read: “ Response: After a character is destroyed, add 1 resource to attached hero’s pool.” We believe this errata balances the Horn of Gondor in the game while preserving its original intended use.

But back in 2013, a second breakfast by Caleb Grace appears here:

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2013/3/19/second-breakfast/

It's a spirit/tactics deck with 2x Horn of Gondor, and he recommends Horn of Gondor as one of five cards he uses for his mulligan decision, since it's his only source of resources. Is that because of it's "original intended use?"

Potential chump blockers:

2x Gondorian Spearman

3x Envoy of Pelargir

Anti-chump defense:

2x Arwen Undomiel

3x Defender of Rammas

3x Great Yew Bow

3x Hands Upon the Bow

3x Feint

3x Light in the Dark

Leaves play:

3x Gandalf

3x Escort from Edoras

Seems to me the "intended use" relies on the original wording in this case, and likely many others.