"Attached hero gets +1 Attack for each resource token on another copy of Keeping Count that is above the current number of resource tokens on this card."

In my last game I had 3 copies of Keeping Count equipped on heroes. Glorfindel had 5 tokens, Elrohir had 3, and Elladan had 1.

When Elladan attacks an Orc how much bonus attack does he get?

I have always played it as +6 attack. That's why the card rocks in multiplayer.

I'd say +6, as there are total 6 more resources on another copies of Keeping Count in play.

edit: 'd

I would say 4 as it says *A*nother copy(singular) and not *other copies*(multiple)

You have to choose one.

This is especially true if you see the german version of the card that instructs you to definitely choose ONE other keeping count card.

All "another copy" rather than "other copies" clarifies is that the subtraction for the heroes own copy takes place before adding them together. "All tokens on other copies" would result in 5 (Glorfindel + 3 (Elrohir) - 1 (Elladan) = +7 Attack.

"Each token on another copy" suggests that you take 'each' instance into account.

I played it as 6, though it didn't matter in that case as Elladan was only fighting an Orc guard at the end of Dol Guldur. If the German version is what was intended I'll be a little disappointed, but not really because Elrohir took out the Ringwratih with a +4 from comparison with Glorfindel a couple of turns earlier. It's a great card either way.

All "another copy" rather than "other copies" clarifies is that the subtraction for the heroes own copy takes place before adding them together. "All tokens on other copies" would result in 5 (Glorfindel + 3 (Elrohir) - 1 (Elladan) = +7 Attack.

"Each token on another copy" suggests that you take 'each' instance into account.

I played it as 6, though it didn't matter in that case as Elladan was only fighting an Orc guard at the end of Dol Guldur. If the German version is what was intended I'll be a little disappointed, but not really because Elrohir took out the Ringwratih with a +4 from comparison with Glorfindel a couple of turns earlier. It's a great card either way.

If they wanted it to count all resource tokens on all copies they would have just said "other copies". The reason it still wouldn't add 7 attack is because it says "that is above". Nothing in the card text says you sum all the resource tokens of all copies before determining how many resource tokens there are. So you would still just Vet +4 and then +2 but it doesn't say 'other copies'.

Also, if you replaced 'another' with 'one more' which is the standard definition of another, would you still be making your argument?

The argument that "if they wanted you to do x, they would have said y" doesn't hold water because there is a better way to say every interpretation of the rule that has been discussed so far. The English version of the rule is needlessly vague whatever you believe the intention to have been.

The card doesn't state that only one other copy of Keeping Count is taken into account, when that would have been easy to establish in the text.

In the above example, "each resource token" applies to 4 tokens on Glorfindel. It also applies to 2 on Elrohir. Nothing in the language prohibits the player from applying both 4 +1 bonuses and another 2 +1 bonuses. Both are copies of Keeping count other than the one on Elladan.

"Each token on one more copy" is bad grammar.

What feels right to me is that you would gain it from each other copy, but not a lump total.

I feel this way because they aren't directly linked. It's not like Support of the Eagles where you specifically pick another card to use. So the way it is worded, I would think it would trigger from each copy.

So if you had your situation Glorfindel had 5 tokens, Elrohir had 3, and Elladan had 1 I would think that Elladan would have +6, and Elrohir would have +2.

This is what feels right, but I'm certainly no expert. Has there ever been a clarifying rule on this card?

I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from, but apparently everyone thinks it would add both. I see no compelling reason that it would, however.

Regardless, this card sucks and I have no intention of using it even if it is supposed to count "another copy".

I had never really thought about this card too much before. The sentence "Attached hero gets +1 Attack for each resource token on another copy of Keeping Count that is above the current number of resource tokens on this card" is really horrible.

I had never really thought about this card too much before. The sentence "Attached hero gets +1 Attack for each resource token on another copy of Keeping Count that is above the current number of resource tokens on this card" is really horrible.

I think it is clunky and I think because it is clunky people are glossing over the word "another". The word another here is referring to a single entity. Once that is proven or refuted, the debate can move on. Every definition of the word "another" I can find either explicitly refers to "one" or refers to "a" something which both refer to a single entity.

Glorfindel's card is "Another" Keeping Count from Elladan's. He applies 4 x +1 Attack to Elladan.

But Elrohir's card is also "Another" Keeping Count from Elladan's. There are multiple single entities in play that invite comparison.

"Each resource token on another copy" applies, so there's another 2x +1 Attack to apply to Elladan's attack.

The German card strongly implies that your definition is the intention. But strictly speaking the language does not support that. It's bad technical writing.

Congratulations on deciding the card sucks, btw. I'll continue to enjoy no-cost, no-effort attack bonuses of 1/2/3/4+ in my decks that happen to make good use of it. It's proving far more efficient than Elven Spear and Fair And Perilous.

I really think you misunderstand the word another. I am going to another house doesn't mean you are going to several houses simultaneously even if you could go to any house other than the one you are currently in...

It means you are going to a different house, but which house is undefined...and you choose which house.

I could say I'm going to another house, and then another, and then another, then sure, each instance of another would refer to a different house but keeping count uses another, only once.

It doesn't matter that another could refer to both copies before you choose a copy. Once you've selected a copy (which is implied by the use of the word another) it can no longer refer to both simultaneously because of the definition of another.

It depends whether you think the "each resource token" or "another copy of Keeping Count" is the main subject of the sentence.

Consider the simpler sentence "Each princess in another castle". When evaluating how many princesses this specifies, do I choose a particular other castle and count the number of princesses in it, or do I loop through every princess and check whether they have the property "is in another castle"?

Attached hero gets +1 Attack for each princess in another castle above the current number of princesses on this card.

C'mon guys, Golden Rule of Middle Earth: Whatever works against the players.

If they wanted it to only refer to one other copy then they would have said, "choose another copy of keeping count..."

Given this game's track record for needing errata I would say it could work either way, and just ask a developer which they rule it to be.

Semantics are normally a great place to turn to when you have questions about meaning. A technical write up of the rules would be great too...

This game fails with both haha. Good thing it's fun, and co-op, so it doesn't matter if I occasionally play things wrong. Because I do... all the time O_O

I'm with cmabr on this that it would only be +4. How do you interpret Merry's response?

"Response: After Merry participates in an attack that destroys an enemy, ready another character that participated in that attack."

Could he ready all characters that participated? In English, another is singular. For plural it would be each other.

I'm with cmabr on this that it would only be +4. How do you interpret Merry's response?

"Response: After Merry participates in an attack that destroys an enemy, ready another character that participated in that attack."

Could he ready all characters that participated? In English, another is singular. For plural it would be each other.

This applies to Balin, Fellowship Frodo, Nenya, Ravenhill Scout among many other cards.

If they wanted it to only refer to one other copy then they would have said, "choose another copy of keeping count..."

They can, but they don't have to. See all the Dunedain attachments. None explicitly says to "choose another hero" but it is implied that you choose one because it says "another hero".

When you target something the choosing is embedded automatically so it can remain unstated. The text on keeping count does not, in any way, involve targeting.

When you target something the choosing is embedded automatically so it can remain unstated. The text on keeping count does not, in any way, involve targeting.

It does involve targeting. It uses the word "another". This is tiring

See Mighty Prowess . This doesn't deal damage to all enemies. It is only one enemy and how do you know which enemy you deal the damage to? Do you randomize it? No, you choose it. There are countless cards that if we decide to randomly change the definition of "another" that become completely and totally overpowered (Merry) and other cards that become completely useless (Balin).

Agreed it is mildly vague. But there are several ways to word this card if you want it to compare itself against all other copies:

"...for each resource token on each other copy..."

"for each resource token on all other copies..."

"for each resource token on other copies..."

And there are few ways to word it if you want it to compare itself against only one other copy:

"...for each resource token on one other copy..." [could still be construed as vague, as "another" is, in this thread]

"...for each resource token on only one other copy" [weird, kind of unnatural phrasing]

"...for each resource token on a second copy" [again, this thread could still exist if they used this wording]

Bottom line, very easy to make this card unambiguously refer to "all other" copies of Keeping Count, but it takes a bit more perspective-taking skill to make it unambiguously refer to "only one" other copy.

So if your heart says "all other," play it that way. If your heart says "only one," play it that way.

But your heart of hearts knows how it should play, wink wink.

I dunno, GrandSpleen. I'm trying hard to understand the other side, but in what way and in what context in English can "another" ever be defined as "each other", "all other", or "on other copies" other than misuse? The word "another" actually means something in English and it never means one of those things you listed as far as I am aware.

Sure, it's possible for people to misuse words, but I can't just misuse the word "and" and misinterpret it as "and give each of your heroes 20 resources and" and then proceed to give myself 20 resources whenever a card effect says "and".