Merry's Sword

[MuadDib85]

Can Merry's sword be used to exert three different minions if you can spot three Rohan comps?

Or would it have to be one minion three times?

[Alazzar]

I started answering this question, then second-guessed myself.  I've since gone back to my original conclusion, but I'm a little less sure of myself now.

NORMALLY, the phrase "for each" means that you can distribute things as you wish (like, if a card said "wound a companion for each culture you can spot" and you spotted 3 cultures, you could divide those wounds however you wish).  However, I think the difference with Merry's Sword is the word "once" in there.  "... exert a minion once for each Rohan companion you can spot."  I dunno, that part of it makes me think we're talkin' about only a single minion...

[MuadDib85]

It has me confused aswell.

I played a game against Merry's Sword the other day and my opponent had Merry + three Rohan Comps.

He was exerting Merry twice and then exerting any three of my minions that he chose.
I questioned him at the time and he said that it can be used to exert any number of minions not just one.

I was hoping for some confirmation on here that he was correct to do that.

[sharkey]

Yeah, it's exert a minion X times, where X is the number of Rohan companions you can spot.

[HawkeyeSPF]

for each
When an effect wounds (or exerts or heals) characters using the phrase "for each," you may wound (or exert or heal) a character more than once. (See toil.)
Aragorn, Wingfoot says, "Each time the fellowship moves, you may wound a minion for each unbound Hobbit you spot." If you spot two unbound Hobbits, you may wound two minions each once or one minion twice.

Your opponent was correct to play it as they did.

[Elessar's Socks]

The 3/04 CRD says Merry's Sword can exert multiple minions.

I think "once" can be viewed as redundant here; otherwise if a card says "exert a minion twice for each" different interpretations would have to be applied.

[Ranhothep]

the once means you place one exertion token per rohan companion spotted. it is true that it is a bit redundant, since I'd say once is the default, if it were more, it would have to be written (twice, thrice etc.)

The confusion might arise from the article "a". It is not equivalent to "one". Even though I'm not a native speaker, I understand a as an unspecific article, which can denote any minion (in this case) so even several ones.