Keeping Count only targets a single other copy of Keeping Count when calculating the attack bonus. So, if there were 3 copies of Keeping Count in play, one on Glorfindel with 5 tokens, one on Elrohir with 3 tokens, and one on Elladan with 1 token, then Elladan could get at most a total of +4 attack strength from Keeping Count (4 being the difference between his 1 token and Glorfindel’s 5).

Cheers,

Caleb

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

The same reason the hero Amarthiul looks like a lady to everyone but is supposed to be a guy. Art isn't always "right" with the context or depiction of the ability/effect/person/etc. Also, I'm admittedly not up that much on the lore, but why is this considered Boromir's shield? Surely lots of soldiers would keep count in such a manor.

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

The same reason the hero Amarthiul looks like a lady to everyone but is supposed to be a guy. Art isn't always "right" with the context or depiction of the ability/effect/person/etc. Also, I'm admittedly not up that much on the lore, but why is this considered Boromir's shield? Surely lots of soldiers would keep count in such a manor.

It looks like Boromir's outfit from the movies is all. I think his shield is round in the books as well.

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.

I think this sentence (bold above) has helped me understand what is confusing to people about the wording on Keeping Count. When something draws a comparison to "another" card, and there are multiple valid targets it is wrong to draw a comparison to each of them because the use of the word another in the first clause prohibits it (another cannot allow the comparison of each by definition). You are forced to draw a comparison to one of them even if you are allowed to be the one that chooses which is more beneficial of the multiple targets.

If it said "If I draw comparison to each card , and there are multiple valid targets..." then it is not wrong to compare it to each.

I really hope this thread can die now that we have official word. I stand by the analysis of the language. The use of the word "another" does not prohibit comparision with multiple valid examples, nor does it require it. The use of the word is vague. Now it has been clarified. That's all.

Really what's going on here is that language is alive, and the dictionary definition of "another" might not hold up to its actual use in living language.

Who are all you people managing to get three copies of Keeping Count out in the first place?!

(Thank God for the Caleb ruling... Otherwise I had visions of Seastan figuring out some way of abusing the card by running 4 of the same mono-Tactics deck in conjunction... )

Keeping Count only targets a single other copy of Keeping Count when calculating the attack bonus. So, if there were 3 copies of Keeping Count in play, one on Glorfindel with 5 tokens, one on Elrohir with 3 tokens, and one on Elladan with 1 token, then Elladan could get at most a total of +4 attack strength from Keeping Count (4 being the difference between his 1 token and Glorfindel’s 5).

Cheers,

Caleb

I'm glad german translators seem to do a good Job... sometimes

The Problem definitely evolves around the english language =D

Who are all you people managing to get three copies of Keeping Count out in the first place?!

(Thank God for the Caleb ruling... Otherwise I had visions of Seastan figuring out some way of abusing the card by running 4 of the same mono-Tactics deck in conjunction... )

I use it in an Erestor/Arwen deck with Elven light. In my last two games I've ended up with all three in play pretty early.

I would think you'd only want one out for awhile to give a good advantage to the others. The problem I have with the card is it takes so many turns before it really is worth it. By late game our boards are generally well established enough that the bonuses from KC are just overkill and unnecessary.

Who are all you people managing to get three copies of Keeping Count out in the first place?!

(Thank God for the Caleb ruling... Otherwise I had visions of Seastan figuring out some way of abusing the card by running 4 of the same mono-Tactics deck in conjunction... )

My favorite method is Hama + Foe Hammer (+ optional Rohan Warhorse). I've had a few games where I was able to get 2 kills per turn with Hama, then give someone a huge attack boost by turn 4-6.

Playing solo it's probably more trouble than it's worth but multiplayer (or playing two-handed) there's usually enough fighting going on to rack up plenty of tokens on a main attacker.

On a quest like Journey Down the Anduin - where enemies can pile up at the end - it can be very welcome to see your least-capable warrior sitting on a +3/4/5 to attack.