While I think it'll see play in other decks, the fact that it takes four full turns to pay for itself outside of secrecy is the big limiting factor. In four turns the game can be over, and I've seen more than enough situations where I've needed those resources for other cards. 4 is a hefty price, but worth it if the game is going to last a while.
NEW PREVIEW out
juanma99 said:
Respectfully dissagree. the prospect of having 3 of these PER player, regardless of sphere, makes it much more powerful than the unique SoG... The price is not a problem, it will pay for itself in a few rounds, and it synergises with itself: the more Resourceful cards you have in play, the more likely you are to be able to play the next one.
How many rounds do your games last? The card doesn't net you a profit until the fifth round. In the overwhelming majority of decks you will rarely draw all three of the cards before the game is over, much less have time to play all three and have the game take long enough to generate a profit.
Steward pays for itself in a single turn; its useful precisely because you only need one of them in play to have an amazing effect. If you are relying on three of this card, its not a card that helps you win; its a "win more" card. By the time you have already drawn three of any particular card you should already control the game.
For a secrecy, its amazing powerful and will be played 100% of the time. But it's no steward.
For the record, depending on how many heroes you have, you could afford this by turn 2 if you spend at most 2 resources with 3 heroes.
well, turn 1... everyone talks as if it is a 4 cost card.. it is a 1 cost card, that can cost 4 if the quest gets out of control. By the time you are out of secrecy you should be near the end of the game, plenty of time to get 1 or 2 these out at cost of 1. Dose it have a condition.. sure.. but like so dose support of the eagles.. your not going to run that unless someone is running eagles.. dose that make the card not ubr powerful.. of course not. Regardless of the talk of Steward vs the new attachment.. (I think it is more powerful and versatile than steward .. not unique, can spread the resource gain over multi heroes, is a neutral card, cheaper).... I do not think it can be argued that it is not powerful. So lets try not to get off topic about steward vs this new card.
booored said:
I do not think it can be argued that it is not powerful. So lets try not to get off topic about steward vs this new card.
This is funny. You claim this card shows power creep, but yet, when people are proving that you are wrong, you tell them do not go off topic.
Let's reiterate. In 3 heroes decks this card costs 4. Do not tell that you lower your threat so you can play it cheaper as this is not a strategy (you need multiple cards to pull it off, and usually the pressure from encounter deck means that you deal with current threat nows, so you don't have multiple turns to just lower threat). So when this card costs 4, let's compare it to Steward:
- Steward comes into play and your net resources are already 0. During the second turn, you gain 2 total, during sixth turn you gained 10 resources already.
- Resourceful comes into play and your net resources are already -4. During the second turn, you are at -3. During sixth turn , you are at +1 and this is the point when you start gaining something.
In this scenario ,Resourceful stands as a weak card , that probably will ruin your game. You are losing a lot of resources in the first most crucial turns. Steward is great because you do not lose any resources and the gain is almost instant. Frankly, I am not that happy about having resource acceleration that starts working from the sixth turn... Still, we do not have many ways to accelerate resources, so we may try to use this card and see what happens. But this is not a game changer.
Now let's assume you play secrecy deck. This is where the card shines as it costs just 1. Still, lets compare it to steward.
- Steward works the same as before, but maybe it is little harder to have leadership hero inside
- Resourceful comes into play and you net resources are already -1. During the second turn, you are at 0. During third turn you are at +1 and this is the point when you start gaining something.
In this scenario, new card gives some more options to secrecy decks. It is not great because you are losing resources at the beginning of the game, but quite quickly it starts to pay off. With the limited amount of resources acceleration, every card like this can be used, especially if they are off color.
But tell me, where is power creep in such limited card that clearly is not better than previous cards? Where is a power creep, if the new card does NOT replace old cards? (but it just adds some diversity).
Ah, I get it now, you do not know what power creep means! Here is a definition for you , taken from MTG wiki:
"For example, compare Pearled Unicorn with Ronom Unicorn (create). Both have the same power, toughness, color, and creature type. The newer Ronom Unicorn, however, costs 1 less mana and has an effect, making it superior to Pearled Unicorn in almost every way."
Tell us that you see power creep, when they print non unique, or cheaper steward of gondor.
What I mean by going of topic is that these conclusion imo are completely backward.. I am not saying steward is not a good card.,. just that this one is better. Due to how versatile it is. Arguing back and forth and saying the exact thing 20 times isn't going to change yours or my opinion so why bother.. we have said our bits and other readers can make up their mind...
But as you started it up again....
guciomir said:
Let's reiterate. In 3 heroes decks this card costs 4. Do not tell that you lower your threat so you can play it cheaper as this is not a strategy (you need multiple cards to pull it off, and usually the pressure from encounter deck means that you deal with current threat nows, so you don't have multiple turns to just lower threat). So when this card costs 4, let's compare it to Steward:
- Steward comes into play and your net resources are already 0. During the second turn, you gain 2 total, during sixth turn you gained 10 resources already.
- Resourceful comes into play and your net resources are already -4. During the second turn, you are at -3. During sixth turn , you are at +1 and this is the point when you start gaining something.
In this scenario ,Resourceful stands as a weak card , that probably will ruin your game. You are losing a lot of resources in the first most crucial turns. Steward is great because you do not lose any resources and the gain is almost instant. Frankly, I am not that happy about having resource acceleration that starts working from the sixth turn... Still, we do not have many ways to accelerate resources, so we may try to use this card and see what happens. But this is not a game changer.
Obviously you only use it in a secrecy deck or a ziggy deck, just as you do not use support of the eagles unless someone is running eagles.. you need to build your deck to utilise the card. This is a no brainier. Saying it doesn't work in a deck not designed to use it doesn't mean anything. That is like me saying if I put vassal of the wind lord in a 3 spirit hero deck it is suddenly a useless card.. it is not useless or bad, your deck building is. So yeah.. in your scenario is is a weak card.. but then so is steward if you have no songs and no leadership heroes.
Though as stated you can combo it with a ziggy deck, using ziggy to cast it on another players 3 hero deck... as ziggy sorts itself for resources. You can hard cast it for 4 on Turn1 at best. Though as I said in my tests with ziggy it usually starts to cook around T3. So Bilbo should be in the ziggy deck and Beravore should be on the table and ziggy should go first. Now ziggy has weaknesses, being a combo deck .. the combo might not trigger... in witch case the entire deck fails. Though this is SUPER rare due to card draw. I think it has happened to me twice.
guciomir said:
Now let's assume you play secrecy deck. This is where the card shines as it costs just 1. Still, lets compare it to steward.
- Steward works the same as before, but maybe it is little harder to have leadership hero inside
- Resourceful comes into play and you net resources are already -1. During the second turn, you are at 0. During third turn you are at +1 and this is the point when you start gaining something.
In this scenario, new card gives some more options to secrecy decks. It is not great because you are losing resources at the beginning of the game, but quite quickly it starts to pay off. With the limited amount of resources acceleration, every card like this can be used, especially if they are off color.
Well, the card cost 1, and you get 1 back.. so it pays for itself in 1 turn. This synigises with the next time it is drawn. What makes this card better than steward is the vast variety of game situations it can be used for.. you can split your resource gain across heroes.. do not tell me you haven't played a steward and ended up with a billion resource on one hero and none on another meaning steward is in fact a 100% DEAD card... you do not need any allegiance to cast it as it is neutral, and unlike steward, its effect increases. So for 3 cost you get 3 resources, of your choice (by casting on different heroes) this to me is much more powerful. Also you can free slots in your deck to remove parting gifts witch is a lame way of handling the resource build up, though there is the belt now.
I am not saying steward isn't a strong strong card.. I am saying that this card is more versatile, fits in more decks, has a stronger effect in total and cheaper to cast.
booored said:
Well, the card cost 1, and you get 1 back.. so it pays for itself in 1 turn.
That's just not true. The attachment only generates cards during the resource phase, which means it generates no resources the turn you bring it out. That's quite different from steward which, generates resources the moment it hits the table.
In addition, I question your definition of' 'versatile'. If a card only works with secrecy decks, its not a versatile card. Yes, its great for secrecy, but Steward will see play in a much wider variety of decks. That's versatility.
no versitility is how the card can be used once in a deck, as the versitility yo uare talking about is the deck construction itself. You build a deck, then the card is versatile if it can be used in many different situations. Steward only has one use. Though it is true you play it for free and is faster
Let’s take a look at how the Resourcefulness works if you don’t have a secrecy deck. Assuming you start with the card, you can play it in turn. Here is an evaluation of how you stand several turns down the road at the end of round 6.
- Resources: You have only now broken even with resource collection. You may have potentially gained a small advantage I resource distribution, but even in round six, you haven’t gained any resources. And if something destroyed the attachment, you put yourself in a huge hole.
- Cards: Remember, the card itself is a cost. You had to lose a card in hand for the privilege of not gaining any net resources. So, even six turns into the game, you have less overall assets than if you had never played the card.
- Opportunity Cost: This is the big one. You need to evaluate what you lost in not playing a different card on turn two. How many progress tokens have you lost because you didn’t play Faramir? Even a generic 2 willpower ally would probably net you 8-10 resources over this span. How many locations are still in play bogging you down because you didn’t play Northern Tracker? What could you have done with five additional actions (not to mention two resources) if you had played Unexpected Courage? You have dug a gigantic hole for yourself with no actual benefit. Even in the next several turns when you start to net resources, you will not escape the cost of not having played a permanent asset earlier in the game.
Without secrecy, I don’t think Resourcefulness is a playable card.
booored said:
no versitility is how the card can be used once in a deck, as the versitility yo uare talking about is the deck construction itself. You build a deck, then the card is versatile if it can be used in many different situations. Steward only has one use. Though it is true you play it for free and is faster
I am struggling to see the consistency in your definition of versatility. You made the argument that Steward is less versatile because it requires you to use leadership. But Resourcefulness isn’t less versatile because it requires you to use secrecy? I am confused. Both are deck construction issues.
I agree with Bohemond. Without secrecy is not really cool but....... In 2 pr 3 player game 1 of the players can be resources provider with SOG with any kind of songs, Parting gifts to move resources around and with this new card as well(maybe also HOG). For example 2 player game 1 player play eagle deck and 1 players play *resources* deck so first turn eagle player get Resourcesful, second turn Steward and 3 turn maybe Horn. Wow there is quickly build up big army of eagles in a couple of turns.Not bad at all! Really good coop combo.
I just hope with all this new cards game will be not more easy in coop game cose in my opinion game is already to easy in coop game anyway.
booored said:
Well, the card cost 1, and you get 1 back.. so it pays for itself in 1 turn. This synigises with the next time it is drawn. What makes this card better than steward is the vast variety of game situations it can be used for.. you can split your resource gain across heroes.. do not tell me you haven't played a steward and ended up with a billion resource on one hero and none on another meaning steward is in fact a 100% DEAD card... you do not need any allegiance to cast it as it is neutral, and unlike steward, its effect increases. So for 3 cost you get 3 resources, of your choice (by casting on different heroes) this to me is much more powerful. Also you can free slots in your deck to remove parting gifts witch is a lame way of handling the resource build up, though there is the belt now.
I am not saying steward isn't a strong strong card.. I am saying that this card is more versatile, fits in more decks, has a stronger effect in total and cheaper to cast.
That's what I am refering to when I say that this card looks better than the super awesome SoG. In order to effectively get SoG into play, you need at least 3, or 2 if you only own one core set, in your deck. So you get it in your hand, you play it and guess what? the other two copies are dead weight from now on. And you better choose wisely in which hero you play it, since you run the risk of getting gazillion resources that you can't play. Thats happened to everyone in this forum, I bet.
Resourceful superiority is due to it's flexibility, in my opinion, not on its cost or how many resources it grants.
Multiple copies of Resourceful can be spread on different heroes, and can synergize for your next copy of it. And you don't need Leadership resources to play it. You can spread its cost over multiple heroes, so you don't really seriously deplete anyone when playing it. SoG can't synergize with itself, since it is unique.
That extra resource per turn, means the difference between putting out a Northern Tracker vs a Lorien Guide. And when the next copy appears in my hand, I will gladly slap it on another hero as soon as I can. And lastly, I suspect that anyone playing Resourceful will also be playing SoG, if able, so I suspect resources arent going to be a problem from now on.
Im not too concerned about power creep, since the scenarios are also evolving, getting nastier and less generic. What I suspect is that it's going to happen is that with each coming scenario, you will need to taylor your deck in order to win. There would be only one type of strategy that could consistently beat them, while most decks will be crushed by the encounter deck.So it's less likely to have One deck to rule them all.
I have deck which one is beat all scenarios (except Dol-Guldor). So for now is not a problem. Maybe in the future yes but without tourny system who really cares what you play ,how you play. But tourney system delay so long....... I start to lose my hope too.
juanma99 said:
That's what I am refering to when I say that this card looks better than the super awesome SoG. In order to effectively get SoG into play, you need at least 3, or 2 if you only own one core set, in your deck. So you get it in your hand, you play it and guess what? the other two copies are dead weight from now on. And you better choose wisely in which hero you play it, since you run the risk of getting gazillion resources that you can't play. Thats happened to everyone in this forum, I bet.
Resourceful superiority is due to it's flexibility, in my opinion, not on its cost or how many resources it grants.
Multiple copies of Resourceful can be spread on different heroes, and can synergize for your next copy of it. And you don't need Leadership resources to play it. You can spread its cost over multiple heroes, so you don't really seriously deplete anyone when playing it. SoG can't synergize with itself, since it is unique.
That extra resource per turn, means the difference between putting out a Northern Tracker vs a Lorien Guide. And when the next copy appears in my hand, I will gladly slap it on another hero as soon as I can. And lastly, I suspect that anyone playing Resourceful will also be playing SoG, if able, so I suspect resources arent going to be a problem from now on.
Im not too concerned about power creep, since the scenarios are also evolving, getting nastier and less generic. What I suspect is that it's going to happen is that with each coming scenario, you will need to taylor your deck in order to win. There would be only one type of strategy that could consistently beat them, while most decks will be crushed by the encounter deck.So it's less likely to have One deck to rule them all.
It's been a while since I've been in such disagreement over an entire post of more than 2 lines.
Resourcefulness is in no way superior to Steward of Gondor. The two cards are not even in the same league. A poster did the demonstration earlier of how long it takes for it to generate enough resources. Which part of it did you and Booored not get?
(Note: all these comments are based on playing Resourcefullness at its full 4 resource cost - nobody is arguing that the card is great with the secrecy discount).
The fact that resourcefullness can be spread over multiple heroes is not "flexibility". You need multiple copies of it in order to do that. It's not like the Dunedain attachment that can really move from one hero to another. Given the choice between playing a single Resourcefullness on a hero versus playing Steward of Gondor on that same hero, who would pick Resourcefulness?
Even that potential triple-play makes absolutely no sense. Let's do the maths and comparison with Steward of Gondor again, but stretching it for 3 copies of resourcefullness. I'll assume you play each copy as soon as possible from a 3 heroes deck.
Turn 1 - You play Steward of Gondor. You use it immediately. You are left with 2 "duplicate" Steward of Gondor in your hand and have 3 resources available. With Resourcefulness, you play nothing (3 Resourcefullness in hand), so you have the same 3 resources available (advantage SoG).
Turn 2 - The SoG guys generates 5 resources. Total count: 8 resources. Resourcefullness plays his first copies. He's down to 2 resources with 2 copies left in hand (at this point, both players have 1 attachment in play and 2 unused cards in hand, but one of them - guess which one - has 8 resources versus 2 resources for the other).
Turn 3 - SoG is now up to 13 resources. Resourcefulness plays his second copy. He's still down to 2 free resources (advantage SoG).
Turn 4 - SoG is up to 18 resources. Resourceful finaly manages to play his 3rd copy. He has 3 resources left.
Turn 5 - From this point on, each turn, the SoG player generates 5 resources while the Res player generates 6. It'll take the resource player 18 turns to catch up with the extra supply generated by Steward of Gondor.
Can it be any clearer that there's no way, at a cost of 4 resources, that this card is better or even close to being as good as Steward of Gondor? I'm not even going into the fact that the Steward guy would have had a huge army of allies in play from his 18 resources by Turn 4 while the other player is stuck with his heroes, 3 attachments and a Wandering Took at the same point in the game...
Seriously!
And as for extra SoG being useless because of its unique status, they can still be pitched for Eowyn or Protector of Lorien. That's still a better use of your cards than playing 2 additional copies of Resourcefulness...
As for this card being the difference between a Northern Tracker and a Lorien Guide, you are again so wrong... You could just play a Northern Tracker instead of Resourcefullness and still have the means to afford a Lorien Guide the next turn!
And as for scenario becoming impossible to beat with a single deck, again, I think you're way off... As player card pool increase, we'll keep getting access to more and more cards. A deck to beat them all will emerge; there are a number of great builds already efficient against "most" scenarios. The main thing we still miss is a cheap "tutor" to start playing Silver Bullets (that, or multi-use cards, such as a healing OR threat reduction on the same card, for example).
BANGORANG, SiCK_Boy!
SiCK_Boy said:
juanma99 said:
That's what I am refering to when I say that this card looks better than the super awesome SoG. In order to effectively get SoG into play, you need at least 3, or 2 if you only own one core set, in your deck. So you get it in your hand, you play it and guess what? the other two copies are dead weight from now on. And you better choose wisely in which hero you play it, since you run the risk of getting gazillion resources that you can't play. Thats happened to everyone in this forum, I bet.
Resourceful superiority is due to it's flexibility, in my opinion, not on its cost or how many resources it grants.
Multiple copies of Resourceful can be spread on different heroes, and can synergize for your next copy of it. And you don't need Leadership resources to play it. You can spread its cost over multiple heroes, so you don't really seriously deplete anyone when playing it. SoG can't synergize with itself, since it is unique.
That extra resource per turn, means the difference between putting out a Northern Tracker vs a Lorien Guide. And when the next copy appears in my hand, I will gladly slap it on another hero as soon as I can. And lastly, I suspect that anyone playing Resourceful will also be playing SoG, if able, so I suspect resources arent going to be a problem from now on.
Im not too concerned about power creep, since the scenarios are also evolving, getting nastier and less generic. What I suspect is that it's going to happen is that with each coming scenario, you will need to taylor your deck in order to win. There would be only one type of strategy that could consistently beat them, while most decks will be crushed by the encounter deck.So it's less likely to have One deck to rule them all.
It's been a while since I've been in such disagreement over an entire post of more than 2 lines.
Resourcefulness is in no way superior to Steward of Gondor. The two cards are not even in the same league. A poster did the demonstration earlier of how long it takes for it to generate enough resources. Which part of it did you and Booored not get?
(Note: all these comments are based on playing Resourcefullness at its full 4 resource cost - nobody is arguing that the card is great with the secrecy discount).
The fact that resourcefullness can be spread over multiple heroes is not "flexibility". You need multiple copies of it in order to do that. It's not like the Dunedain attachment that can really move from one hero to another. Given the choice between playing a single Resourcefullness on a hero versus playing Steward of Gondor on that same hero, who would pick Resourcefulness?
Even that potential triple-play makes absolutely no sense. Let's do the maths and comparison with Steward of Gondor again, but stretching it for 3 copies of resourcefullness. I'll assume you play each copy as soon as possible from a 3 heroes deck.
Turn 1 - You play Steward of Gondor. You use it immediately. You are left with 2 "duplicate" Steward of Gondor in your hand and have 3 resources available. With Resourcefulness, you play nothing (3 Resourcefullness in hand), so you have the same 3 resources available (advantage SoG).
Turn 2 - The SoG guys generates 5 resources. Total count: 8 resources. Resourcefullness plays his first copies. He's down to 2 resources with 2 copies left in hand (at this point, both players have 1 attachment in play and 2 unused cards in hand, but one of them - guess which one - has 8 resources versus 2 resources for the other).
Turn 3 - SoG is now up to 13 resources. Resourcefulness plays his second copy. He's still down to 2 free resources (advantage SoG).
Turn 4 - SoG is up to 18 resources. Resourceful finaly manages to play his 3rd copy. He has 3 resources left.
Turn 5 - From this point on, each turn, the SoG player generates 5 resources while the Res player generates 6. It'll take the resource player 18 turns to catch up with the extra supply generated by Steward of Gondor.
Can it be any clearer that there's no way, at a cost of 4 resources, that this card is better or even close to being as good as Steward of Gondor? I'm not even going into the fact that the Steward guy would have had a huge army of allies in play from his 18 resources by Turn 4 while the other player is stuck with his heroes, 3 attachments and a Wandering Took at the same point in the game...
Seriously!
And as for extra SoG being useless because of its unique status, they can still be pitched for Eowyn or Protector of Lorien. That's still a better use of your cards than playing 2 additional copies of Resourcefulness...
As for this card being the difference between a Northern Tracker and a Lorien Guide, you are again so wrong... You could just play a Northern Tracker instead of Resourcefullness and still have the means to afford a Lorien Guide the next turn!
And as for scenario becoming impossible to beat with a single deck, again, I think you're way off... As player card pool increase, we'll keep getting access to more and more cards. A deck to beat them all will emerge; there are a number of great builds already efficient against "most" scenarios. The main thing we still miss is a cheap "tutor" to start playing Silver Bullets (that, or multi-use cards, such as a healing OR threat reduction on the same card, for example).
SiCK_Boy said:
juanma99 said:
That's what I am refering to when I say that this card looks better than the super awesome SoG. In order to effectively get SoG into play, you need at least 3, or 2 if you only own one core set, in your deck. So you get it in your hand, you play it and guess what? the other two copies are dead weight from now on. And you better choose wisely in which hero you play it, since you run the risk of getting gazillion resources that you can't play. Thats happened to everyone in this forum, I bet.
Resourceful superiority is due to it's flexibility, in my opinion, not on its cost or how many resources it grants.
Multiple copies of Resourceful can be spread on different heroes, and can synergize for your next copy of it. And you don't need Leadership resources to play it. You can spread its cost over multiple heroes, so you don't really seriously deplete anyone when playing it. SoG can't synergize with itself, since it is unique.
That extra resource per turn, means the difference between putting out a Northern Tracker vs a Lorien Guide. And when the next copy appears in my hand, I will gladly slap it on another hero as soon as I can. And lastly, I suspect that anyone playing Resourceful will also be playing SoG, if able, so I suspect resources arent going to be a problem from now on.
Im not too concerned about power creep, since the scenarios are also evolving, getting nastier and less generic. What I suspect is that it's going to happen is that with each coming scenario, you will need to taylor your deck in order to win. There would be only one type of strategy that could consistently beat them, while most decks will be crushed by the encounter deck.So it's less likely to have One deck to rule them all.
It's been a while since I've been in such disagreement over an entire post of more than 2 lines.
Resourcefulness is in no way superior to Steward of Gondor. The two cards are not even in the same league. A poster did the demonstration earlier of how long it takes for it to generate enough resources. Which part of it did you and Booored not get?
(Note: all these comments are based on playing Resourcefullness at its full 4 resource cost - nobody is arguing that the card is great with the secrecy discount).
The fact that resourcefullness can be spread over multiple heroes is not "flexibility". You need multiple copies of it in order to do that. It's not like the Dunedain attachment that can really move from one hero to another. Given the choice between playing a single Resourcefullness on a hero versus playing Steward of Gondor on that same hero, who would pick Resourcefulness?
Even that potential triple-play makes absolutely no sense. Let's do the maths and comparison with Steward of Gondor again, but stretching it for 3 copies of resourcefullness. I'll assume you play each copy as soon as possible from a 3 heroes deck.
Turn 1 - You play Steward of Gondor. You use it immediately. You are left with 2 "duplicate" Steward of Gondor in your hand and have 3 resources available. With Resourcefulness, you play nothing (3 Resourcefullness in hand), so you have the same 3 resources available (advantage SoG).
Turn 2 - The SoG guys generates 5 resources. Total count: 8 resources. Resourcefullness plays his first copies. He's down to 2 resources with 2 copies left in hand (at this point, both players have 1 attachment in play and 2 unused cards in hand, but one of them - guess which one - has 8 resources versus 2 resources for the other).
Turn 3 - SoG is now up to 13 resources. Resourcefulness plays his second copy. He's still down to 2 free resources (advantage SoG).
Turn 4 - SoG is up to 18 resources. Resourceful finaly manages to play his 3rd copy. He has 3 resources left.
Turn 5 - From this point on, each turn, the SoG player generates 5 resources while the Res player generates 6. It'll take the resource player 18 turns to catch up with the extra supply generated by Steward of Gondor.
Can it be any clearer that there's no way, at a cost of 4 resources, that this card is better or even close to being as good as Steward of Gondor? I'm not even going into the fact that the Steward guy would have had a huge army of allies in play from his 18 resources by Turn 4 while the other player is stuck with his heroes, 3 attachments and a Wandering Took at the same point in the game...
Seriously!
And as for extra SoG being useless because of its unique status, they can still be pitched for Eowyn or Protector of Lorien. That's still a better use of your cards than playing 2 additional copies of Resourcefulness...
As for this card being the difference between a Northern Tracker and a Lorien Guide, you are again so wrong... You could just play a Northern Tracker instead of Resourcefullness and still have the means to afford a Lorien Guide the next turn!
And as for scenario becoming impossible to beat with a single deck, again, I think you're way off... As player card pool increase, we'll keep getting access to more and more cards. A deck to beat them all will emerge; there are a number of great builds already efficient against "most" scenarios. The main thing we still miss is a cheap "tutor" to start playing Silver Bullets (that, or multi-use cards, such as a healing OR threat reduction on the same card, for example).
I guess just after playing it we'll know for sure how it'll work out. If you are playing monosphere decks or dual or triple sphere without Leadership or Song of Kings, maybe SoG is all you need. All I said is that Resourceful being neutral and non-restricted is more flexible than SoG,theres. Being more flexible doesn't take merits off of SoG in that is cheaper, useful immediately and it gives you more resources. That's all I said. I can be proven wrong once I play and I will be the first one to admit it, and I'm not claiming to be the world expert on card games. I just gave my opinion.
One more thing: I never implied that scenarios are going to be IMPOSSIBLE to beat with a single deck. It's a matter of odds. I just meant that with more powerful cards available, there are new mechanics introduced to the game that will make a "one size fits all decks" less likely to beat them consistently. More ways to build a deck, but many more specific scenarios with many different mechanics.
LOTR is a card game, with a luck component built-in. I'm pretty sure that even with the starting decks, theres a certain order of dealts from encounter deck reveals and starting hands that can beat Dol Guldur, even if the odds are 1 in 1,000,000. (I'm throwing out numbers here, no need to tell me that they are "so wrong on so many levels").
Again, I'm just posting my opinion and not attacking anyone, and unless you are a playtester or Nate French, chill out and just respectfully express your opinion and let's learn to respect others'.
"If you are playing monosphere decks or dual or triple sphere without Leadership or Song of Kings, maybe SoG is all you need."
Meant to say "with Leadership or Song of Kings".
Saying Resourcefulness is worse than SoG isn't much of a condemnation. SoG is the best card in the game, after all (room for dispute here, but it's at LEAST in the top 5). There's something to be said for the "consistent utility" argument--Resourcefulness will never be a dead card, while multiple factors (loss of Leadership icons, another copy already in play) can make a drawn SoG useless--but that's precisely why its effect isn't as powerful as SoG's. Still, any resource acceleration has its uses, especially in the form of a neutral attachment that can slot into any deck without requiring any Songs or specific heroes.
Besides, you're all forgetting the REAL benefit offered by Steward of Gondor: the Gondor trait it gives to the attached character. Believe me, it'll become invaluable during the inevitable Minas Tirith cycle 