While ideological ambiguity has been widely studied as a political strategy, the literature offers mixed theoretical expectations and empirical results about its electoral consequences. Some scholars have argued that ambiguity increases voter uncertainty, which in turn leads to punishment by voters. In contrast, others show that it can be an effective strategy that allows a party to appeal to a broader audience. However, most studies overlook how ambiguity interacts with valence strategies—non-positional appeals emphasizing universally valued traits such as competence and trustworthiness. Building on Page's Emphasis Allocation Theory (1976), this paper explores whether emphasizing valence mitigates the costs of ideological ambiguity or even enhances its potential benefits. Using data from the 2019 European Election Studies (EES), the Euromanifesto Project, and the Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES), I employ a multilevel linear model to analyze how ambiguity and valence jointly influence voters' propensity to vote (PTV) for political parties. The results indicate that ideological ambiguity alone is generally detrimental. However, when parties both adopt an ambiguous stance while also emphasizing their valence in the electoral manifestos, ambiguity has a positive effect on voters' perceived utility in voting for a party. This combination provides parties with a strategy to appeal broadly while maintaining a unifying message, aligning with Page's theoretical expectations. The findings contribute to the debate on ambiguity in electoral competition and to better understand under which conditions it becomes a beneficial strategy.