The effect doesn't say "target another copy", it says "for each resource that is ON another copy." The direct object is resource, not copy.

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.

There are three princess in my castle. There are two princesses in Bowser's castle. There is a princess in Wario's castle.

You're sitting in my castle. How many princesses are in another castle?

1. "Whenever you are under the mistletoe with another person of the opposite sex, give that person a kiss."

The above sentence is an example where the word "another" does not refer to one and only one person.

2. "Give another person a kiss."

This second example uses the word to refer to one and only one target.

So, purely in terms of a grammatical discussion the word "another" is not conclusive; it can be used both ways.

Grandspleen, as usual, has a reasonable and clear breakdown. I do disagree only in so far as the second set of examples he gave are not ambiguous at all.

I would not be surprised if the official word came down that you have to choose only one copy of keeping count, but by strict language this is not a "wink wink" case where we know what it is supposed to mean. I can guarantee that in a logical treatise or legal document the strict meaning of the phrasing would, in fact, lead one to add the difference from each other copy of keeping count. This is just a game, so we don't need to be anal about it, but there is also no reason to simply dismiss those who disagree with you.

Also, there is no way that keeping count targets a second copy of keeping count. Why would it? Just because it uses the word "another"? That makes no sense, sorry. What if a dwarf card said "If you control another dwarf ally, this card gains sentinel". That card would not target the second dwarf card.

I do agree this is tiring. So at least we can agree on something.

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".

As I have already pointed out, no one is disagreeing with your definition of "another" as a single article. The issue is that the sentence structure does not preclude the existence of multiple single articles in the count.

Had they used 'other' instead of 'another' there we would be counting up each resource token in play before applying the subtraction for the subject hero's own Keeping Count. It's usage makes sense in both readings.

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".

There's also the small matter of those attachments being physical objects being transferred from one hero to another.

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.

There are three princess in my castle. There are two princesses in Bowser's castle. There is a princess in Wario's castle.

You're sitting in my castle. How many princesses are in another castle?

I think this is a misuse of the word "another". However, apparently many people misuse it (it seems) and that's why there is confusion. The answer to your question is "2 or 1" depending on which castle. I can't simultaneously choose both. If you wanted me to choose both you would have to say "each other" or "other castles". The reason I can't choose both is because "another" refers to a single entity once selected.

1. "Whenever you are under the mistletoe with another person of the opposite sex, give that person a kiss."

The above sentence is an example where the word "another" does not refer to one and only one person.

2. "Give another person a kiss."

This second example uses the word to refer to one and only one target.

So, purely in terms of a grammatical discussion the word "another" is not conclusive; it can be used both ways.

Grandspleen, as usual, has a reasonable and clear breakdown. I do disagree only in so far as the second set of examples he gave are not ambiguous at all.

I would not be surprised if the official word came down that you have to choose only one copy of keeping count, but by strict language this is not a "wink wink" case where we know what it is supposed to mean. I can guarantee that in a logical treatise or legal document the strict meaning of the phrasing would, in fact, lead one to add the difference from each other copy of keeping count. This is just a game, so we don't need to be anal about it, but there is also no reason to simply dismiss those who disagree with you.

Also, there is no way that keeping count targets a second copy of keeping count. Why would it? Just because it uses the word "another"? That makes no sense, sorry. What if a dwarf card said "If you control another dwarf ally, this card gains sentinel". That card would not target the second dwarf card.

I do agree this is tiring. So at least we can agree on something.

I think you give good examples, but when I said another only refers to a single entity I meant to say "refers to a single entity at a time". I think I already showed that "another" can refer to multiple entities in the example where I was saying "going from one place to another". "Another" doesn't define what other place I'm going to. The only thing that defines "another" in my example is once the individual goes to a place, be it randomly, or by choice.

In your example, I guess you theoretically could kiss 20 people simultaneously.

Is there any reason why you wouldn't deal the entire deck as shadow cards if you canceled the first with Balin's ability?

There is no point to this debate... The wording is ambiguous and unless a dev comes in, there is no "right" answer.

What we can do is choose

1 - easy mode - count the difference of every Keeping Count for a higher possible total.

2 - hard mode - count the difference of only 1 Keeping Count for a lesser advantage.

Choose which path you want for your game, and know that it's your choice.

There is no point to this debate... The wording is ambiguous and unless a dev comes in, there is no "right" answer.

What we can do is choose

1 - easy mode - count the difference of every Keeping Count for a higher possible total.

2 - hard mode - count the difference of only 1 Keeping Count for a lesser advantage.

Choose which path you want for your game, and know that it's your choice.

There is a point, though. If we accept that the word "another" is ambiguous, then Merry, Nenya, Spare Hood and Cloak, Elrond's Counsel, Graive Cairn, and Small Target, become completely and totally overpowered. I mean, I guess someone can submit a rules inquiry about every single card in the game that used the word another, but that seems ridiculous to me.

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".

There's also the small matter of those attachments being physical objects being transferred from one hero to another.

Nothing in the rules explicitly prohibits an attachment from being in a constant loop of being attached to various single characters. It's just that when you attach it, it says "attach to a hero, or character" which are both singular. This is obviously a ridiculous notion so there is no point in going down this rabbit hole. Simply put, since they use the word another, apparently, it is no longer clear whether or not I can trigger the action once and then constantly loop who they are attached to.

There is no point to this debate... The wording is ambiguous and unless a dev comes in, there is no "right" answer.

What we can do is choose

1 - easy mode - count the difference of every Keeping Count for a higher possible total.

2 - hard mode - count the difference of only 1 Keeping Count for a lesser advantage.

Choose which path you want for your game, and know that it's your choice.

There is a point, though. If we accept that the word "another" is ambiguous, then Merry, Nenya, Spare Hood and Cloak, Elrond's Counsel, Graive Cairn, and Small Target, become completely and totally overpowered. I mean, I guess someone can submit a rules inquiry about every single card in the game that used the word another, but that seems ridiculous to me.

If 'another' was the only definitive word on those cards prohibiting multiple actions you might have a semblance of a point.

Your obsession with a single word means you're missing the forest for the trees. And sentences are forests, friend.

It's clear that our interpretations of the English wording are not going to reach a consensus. I would then point to the German version, which according to an earlier poster "instructs you to definitely choose ONE other keeping count card." So unless you get an official ruling that says otherwise, you should be playing it that way (also because of the Golden Rule).

Technically, Merry says "ready another character". Nothing prevents you from readying multiple "another" characters under this strange interpretation of the word another that you all are arguing.

Merry attacks with 20 other characters and destroys an enemy. I ready "another" character (different from Merry), and then I ready "another" character because it is also different from Merry and so on and so forth until I ready all 20 characters that participated in that attack. Apparently it doesn't matter that "character" is singular or that another only refers to one entity once it is elected.

cmbar002, you have strange obsession with this debate, but also a strange method of debate. I don't understand how "most of the time 'another' refers to only one thing but sometimes can refer to many examples of one thing" becomes or must become, "everytime you use the word 'another' it now refers to many examples of one thing". As with every other word ever, the word can mean different things depending on the context. Do you struggle this much with every other word you use which has more than one definition or nuance of use? Using language must drive you crazy.

cmbar002, you have strange obsession with this debate, but also a strange method of debate. I don't understand how "most of the time 'another' refers to only one thing but sometimes can refer to many examples of one thing" becomes or must become, "everytime you use the word 'another' it now refers to many examples of one thing". As with every other word ever, the word can mean different things depending on the context. Do you struggle this much with every other word you use which has more than one definition or nuance of use? Using language must drive you crazy.

If it said "each other" then it would make sense to interpret the way you all are. It doesn't and just because you CAN put those words there and have the sentence still make grammatical sense doesn't mean it has the same meaning. "Another" should never mean "each other" even if people misuse it to mean that. Eventually, because of misuse the word may change meaning to include "each other", but as far as I was aware, we hadn't reached that point. Based on this discussion though, I'm hard pressed to argue that we haven't reached that point as it seems I am in the minority here. If it can mean "each other" then I see no compelling reason why Merry can't ready each character that participated in the attack. Unfortunately, that breaks the game and that is why it is important to me.

Well, since you enjoy repeating yourself I will also repeat that context matters. When you target something the word "another" cannot mean that you repeat it endlessly. I have no clue why you insist that this consequence must necessarily follow. It makes no sense. It seems like you are just being a jerk. I don't like saying that, but that is how it comes accross.

Well, since you enjoy repeating yourself I will also repeat that context matters. When you target something the word "another" cannot mean that you repeat it endlessly. I have no clue why you insist that this consequence must necessarily follow. It makes no sense. It seems like you are just being a jerk. I don't like saying that, but that is how it comes accross.

I agree that context matters for the purposes of language, but in this context another cannot mean each other. I'm pretty sure it can never mean each other unless it is misuse.

Correct, "another" does not mean "each other", it means "another". However, in the context in which several instances can be repeated hypothetically, as in the many examples given, then "another" can refer to multiple examples. Admitting this does not then necessitate that you must now use "another" to always refer to multiple instances, even in times when it does not fit context. Sorry, but this is always how language works. It is not misuse.

Correct, "another" does not mean "each other", it means "another". However, in the context in which several instances can be repeated hypothetically, as in the many examples given, then "another" can refer to multiple examples. Admitting this does not then necessitate that you must now use "another" to always refer to multiple instances, even in times when it does not fit context. Sorry, but this is always how language works. It is not misuse.

I can't seem to articulate why you can't reference both copies for the benefit simultaneously well enough so it seems the conversation needn't continue. I already tried articulating it, but was unsuccessful at conveying what I meant.

It's clear that our interpretations of the English wording are not going to reach a consensus. I would then point to the German version, which according to an earlier poster "instructs you to definitely choose ONE other keeping count card." So unless you get an official ruling that says otherwise, you should be playing it that way (also because of the Golden Rule).

No one's arguing about the intention of the card any more. It's all about the one person who can't accept how there could possibly be any confusion about the English wording.

It's Team "I can see how that can be read both ways" against Team "THE DICTIONARY DEFINES 'ANOTHER' AS..."

You're just running on a slippery slope argument now...

To say "A card which references another card as a sort of comparison" is the same as "a card which targets and effects another card" isn't arguing or proving anything.

The card may very well be intended to work the way you say... That doesn't mean everyone else here is ignorant.

Our opinion that this card could reference both has nothing to do with Marry or other "target another" type cards.

Imagine if I said "Drive to work another way" you would then pick a way and drive it. We all understand this...

But if I said "How much faster is this path than another path" you could easily say "It's t faster than yPath and t faster than zPath."

As has been said - context matters here. If I direct an action to another card, it can certainly only effect one other card... But if I draw a comparison to another card, and there are multiple valid targets... how is it wrong to compare to each of them?

The card is comparing the amount of resources, and says to get +1 attack for each resource on another copy above the number this one has. By drawing a comparison rather than target or interact with any 1 version, it opens up the ambiguity to refer to both. The core part of the sentence is the number of tokens too, which is why someone may even consider you add them all up rather than compare each card.

Now - you've said your peace. We understand your point of view... You don't need to repeat it again for us to read it. Simply saying the same things again isn't debating.

And so you know - I do agree with you. It's more likely intended to be compared to a single copy of Keeping Count than to pool the comparison together, but it isn't certain. At least not in the English version.

I interpret Keeping Count as the scene in which Legolas and Gimli fight side by side and count their victims in comparison to each other. The card itself should give the character who is last (or behind the first) the opportunity to catch up by boosting his attack by the difference to the first person. So for me, it makes no sense to sum up the differences from different card copies in order to calculate the attack boost. Each character compare his counts with the one who has the most kills .. and then gets his attack boost out of the difference.

I interpret Keeping Count as the scene in which Legolas and Gimli fight side by side and count their victims in comparison to each other. The card itself should give the character who is last (or behind the first) the opportunity to catch up by boosting his attack by the difference to the first person. So for me, it makes no sense to sum up the differences from different card copies in order to calculate the attack boost. Each character compare his counts with the one who has the most kills .. and then gets his attack boost out of the difference.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

People are getting too bogged down in the language and missing the entire point of the card. It's "Keeping Count". Do the warriors feel motivated to catch up to the kill-count leader, or the combined kill count difference of all the other warriors in the battle? I think the answer is obvious.

If I'm third I'm going to try even harder than if I were in second.

Why is the card picture Boromir's shield if it's a Legolas & Gimli card, anyway?

On that note Seastan: When I play a multiplayer game like an FPS or such, I often DO compare myself versus the entire team. Sometimes on a team of 8-16 a single person can be half the score... I've been equal to 1/4th of a 128 member team before.

That said, after this thread debate I agree that Keeping Count makes sense to only compare to a single other copy. If you had the example presented in this thread

3 copies of Keeping Count equipped on heroes. Glorfindel had 5 tokens, Elrohir had 3, and Elladan had 1.

Elladan would receive +4, and Elrohir would receive +2.

I fully support this position, and do not feel it is very ambiguous at this point.