Each wound on A character vs. each wound on EACH character...?

[DáinIronfoot]

Okay, interesting little wording question here.

Several minions in the game get bonuses of some kind by spotting wounds on characters in those minions' skirmishes. The best example would be the old-school berserkers.

Berserk Rager, Berserk Savage, Berserk Slayer, and Uruk-hai Berserker all have the text "[This minion]" is strength +1 for each wound on a character in its skirmish." Berserk Butcher (and the later Berserker Torch), however, have the wording "...strength + for each character in its skirmish."

Now, I have always read this as two different effects. I presume that the wording of the first (with the "a") indicates that a single character in that skirmish is spotted and the wounds on that character (and that character only) are counted, whereas the wording of the second ("each") indicates that all wounds on ALL characters in that skirmish are counted.

But I can see the potential for confusion. I could see a very good argument made that the two are actual interchangable, with either wording indicating that you spot all wounds on all characters in that skirmish.

So which is it? Are they different abilities that just happen to have similiar wording, or did Decipher intend for them to mean the same thing? Help me, resident experts!

[FingolfinFinwe]

Wowsa.  Nice catch!  I've always played them both the same way.  But the wording sure does make it confusing.

Am I off base in saying: if it were it to play that you spot one character in the skirmish it would actually say "Skirmish: spot a character in a skirmish with x wounds to make Berserk Rager strength plus x."

Maybe that's too complicated, but anyways I'm going to stick with the idea that both wordings mean the same thing...  Until someone corrects me. 

[Elessar's Socks]

Those four were clarified in the Comprehensive Rulebook to: "The strength bonus for this minion is increased for any wound on any minion, companion, or ally in its skirmish."

Basically "for each wound of each character in its skirmish," consistent with the Berserk Butcher.

[DáinIronfoot]

Ah, so they ARE interchangable. I guess Big D decided to make the wording clearer and thus abandoned the "a" for "each".

Okay, thanks. Glad I haven't tried to actually use any of them in a game yet.

[Kralik]

Now, I have always read this as two different effects. I presume that the wording of the first (with the "a") indicates that a single character in that skirmish is spotted and the wounds on that character (and that character only) are counted, whereas the wording of the second ("each") indicates that all wounds on ALL characters in that skirmish are counted.

I believe this is correct.

EDIT: Strike that, I replied before reading other replies. I should have known anyways, since the clarifications are listed in the card notes in the DB.

[Kralik]

Am I off base in saying: if it were it to play that you spot one character in the skirmish it would actually say "Skirmish: spot a character in a skirmish with x wounds to make Berserk Rager strength plus x."

No, because with nothing else but spotting requirements, you could do it infinite times.

[FingolfinFinwe]

ah yes good point. This is why I don't make dream cards!   

[Thranduil]

To add unnecessary weight to the argument, yes the two types of beserker text are the same. Not how the 'each' is from Ents of Fangorn while all the others are from Battle of Helm's Deep.

Thranduil