These cards are seemingly very straightforward, so let's continue our straightforwardness. I may be racing a bit, but I don't think it's very much to catch up on, but if you want me to slow down, tell me.
And yes, I know I need lores. I'm just being a bit lazy!

I've been wanting to make an Aragorn with this subtitle for so long (i'm not quite sure why...)
![4 [4]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/4.png)
•
Aragorn, Longshanks ![Gondor [Gondor]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/gondor.png)
Companion • Man
Str: 8
Vit: 4
Res: 8
Ranger.While Aragorn has resistance 7 or more, the move limit is +1.
L C 67
![4 [4]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/4.png)
•
Aragorn, Last of His Line ![Gondor [Gondor]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/gondor.png)
Companion • Man
Str: 8
Vit: 4
Res: 8
Valiant. Unyielding (Aragorn's resistance is not modified by the number of burdens).
Maneuver: Exert Aragorn to make a companion (except the Ring-bearer) resistance X until the regroup phase, where X is Aragorn's resistance.
L R 66
Noble Companions ![Gondor [Gondor]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/gondor.png)
Event • Skirmish
Spot a
![Gondor [Gondor]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/gondor.png)
Man to make an unbound companion strength +2 (and heal that companion if he or she has resistance 5 or more).
L U 75
A few notes:
• I'm not very happy about Noble Companions, but I don't want it to just add +3 strength because that will step on the toes of the
![Gandalf [Gandalf]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/gandalf.png)
component of the cycle. I suppose it could be healing, though I was going to do that in
![Shire [Shire]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/shire.png)
but I suppose that one could remove burdens... The point of it as currently done is as an anti-aggressor weapon as well as just generally preventing your opponent from playing skirmish events.
• I'm making a conscious design decision to avoid keywords like
ranger,
knight,
valiant and the like because they do not seem to me to be useful design. Decipher realised that
Southron, Easterling and
Corsair limited deckbuilding too much, for example, which is why they did away with them, and I'm inclined to agree with these FP equivalents. The reason for me is, these keywords are unhelpful while they only encompass a sub-culture. If you had ranger or knight or valiant or twilight or any of these sweeping across cultures, then they become more like creature types from MTG and could lead to fun decks, but at the moment I'm not convinced they're useful design-wise. If you think strongly otherwise, please convince me!

Thranduil