Jump to content

Objective card "Contained" explained


PanikSpreder

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

Me and a friend had a discussion about the objective card "Contained". Does it still count if your enemies warband is completly taken out of action aka wiped? We had a game and he had a couple of fighters on my side and I had none left at the third end phase and he scored the card which I'm not sure was allowed since its worded with something along the way of "all surviving enemy fighters".

Would post a pic of the card, but my cards/warbands are currently at a friends place :P

Edit: Just realized we have the official site to see all cards so included a screenshot of it

contained.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I haven't had chance to play the game yet, but QuantumMottle's interpretation seems creative.

 

RAW if there are no surviving enemy fighters to be contained then the conditions are not met.

 

From a narrative POV if there are no surviving enemy fighters to be contained then there is no enemy to be contained.

 

From a gaming POV, if Shadespire is supposed to be a competitive and tactical game, it makes sense that a player that selects a card which requires certain conditions to score a point (e.g. contain the surviving enemy) and then chooses to prevent himself from achieving those conditions (i.e. killing all opponents) ought not be rewarded for doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if my initial response was a bit flippant. Maybe this is one that will need to be FAQ’d. But generally, every Objective card that requires a minimum  number of fighters specifically states it eg March of the Dead below. No such minimum number is stated on Contained. 

The cards are meant to be interpreted precisely, even if the wording falls down at times. But nowhere on Contained does it specify that there has to be a surviving fighter in their territory. 

3077F144-F646-4BD0-8CA5-AEA52DB90BE3.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panik, I would say that unless you can show me a surviving fighter who isn’t in their territory then the score condition is met. 

 

However, I doubt myself a little as by my argument you could also score Conquest with no surviving models. I don’t think that’s the intent, but I would still say it is the RAW. 

84903912-15D0-46D4-A978-6A5EEC50FFF1.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, QuantumMottle said:

Panik, I would say that unless you can show me a surviving fighter who isn’t in their territory then the score condition is met. 

 

However, I doubt myself a little as by my argument you could also score Conquest with no surviving models. I don’t think that’s the intent, but I would still say it is the RAW. 

84903912-15D0-46D4-A978-6A5EEC50FFF1.jpeg

RAW I 100% agree with you regarding contained. IF there are any surviving enemy fighters, they must be in their territory. If every enemy fighter is dead, that still satisfy the objective: All surviving fighters (of which there are none) are in their territory.

Sadly this will also force me to agree that Conquest can be scored RAW, if you manage to get your entire warband killed. Their wording is exactly the same...

RAI however... It makes sense that you shouldn't be PUNISHED by actually killing all your enemies and. I think you should score Contained if you annihilate your enemy.
Like wise you shouldn't be rewarded by getting annihilated yourself. I strongly believe a FAQ will demand a single survivor to claim Conquest.

But I'll concede we need a FAQ for these cards, because one rules out the other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

''All surviving fighters (of which there are none) are in their territory.''

 

There are no surviving fighters therefore there are no fighters to satisfy the criteria of 'all surviving fighters'.

 

Again, it's creative to read 0 as a value.

 

Edit: AOS match play effectively punishes you for tunnelvision killing the enemies over achieving the point scoring objectives - I don't think it's a stretch for a competitive game to require strategy over brute force.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, 'all surviving enemy/friendly fighters' suggests that there need to be survivors for either effect to trigger. Otherwise, as has been said above, you're interpreting 0 as a value - which is a stretch.

I.e: at the end of the game, every fighter is either a survivor or dead. Both of these objectives specify the presence of survivors, not the absence of fighters.

If every enemy fighter is dead, there are no survivors anywhere - so Contained can't trigger. Similarly, if every friendly fighter is dead, there are no survivors in enemy territory - so Conquest can't trigger.

It would be a different matter if Contained was worded 'Score this in the third end phase if there are no enemy fighters in your territory'. But as it is, it doesn't feel particularly ambiguous. A FAQ would be great, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob, while I take your wider point about strategy, I think it’s your interpretation which is getting creative. The card does not set a minimum number of fighters to meet the score condition. Every other objective card which does require a minimum explicitly states it.

With the enemy warband wiped, there are no surviving fighters who are not within their territory to deny the score condition. 

EDIT: in response to the last post, I’m not sure where the idea of interpreting 0 as a value enters into it. Can you explain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, QuantumMottle said:

Compare the lack of minimum fighters stated to these objectives. Particularly Twilight Conqueror. This is otherwise identical. 

 

 

See, I read that the opposite way: this establishes that 'surviving fighters' requires a number of surviving fighters - these cards happen to specify three for balance reasons.  This comes down to whether or not you treat zero as a valid value - I feel like there's precedent for not doing this.

The first Shadespire example of this I can think of is the ruling that you can't push somebody if you both roll zero successes for attack and defense - you both have an equal number of successes, meeting the criteria for a push without damage, but the additional ruling establishes that zero successes don't count as a number of successes. It would follow, to me, that zero survivors doesn't count as a number of survivors.

That said, I totally agree that this needs an FAQ clarification. I'd just be surprised if they ruled that dead warbands can score Conquest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly QuantomMottle... If the value of X needs to be different from 0 it's explicitly stated as per your examples. The card is missing "at least one".
I think "Contained" is very clear cut... All surviving enemy fighters must be in their territory:
Are there any enemy fighters alive NOT in their territory? No? Then the conditions are satisfied.

 It's "Conquest" that's problematic as it actually potentially rewards you for letting your final fighter get killed.

Anyways... I feel like a Vulcan and think my point of view is 100% logical. I guess some people disagree and feel 100% logical about their point of view...
FAQ nao!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, QuantumMottle said:

The card does not set a minimum number of fighters to meet the score condition.

It does, though. There must be at least one,  because if there isn't one then there are no survivors. 

A model that is not present cannot be on a location on the board.  Someone,  even just one fighter, must have survived for there to be survivors.

It's not a rules thing.  It's a meaning of words thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sleboda, I fundamentally disagree with what you say in your post. The phrase ‘all surviving fighters’ in my view carries no implication that any survivors are required, just that any who have survived fulfil the score condition. Particularly not within the set in-Game precedent that other cards do state when a minimum number is required. 

However, as Goblin-King says, both sides of this debate seem convinced, and I don’t think any of us are persuading the others. I will bow out at this point, wait for an FAQ, and house rule it locally in the meantime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conquest is only a problem if you choose to read Contained in a way that makes Conquest a problem.

 

I think there is a flaw in your logic here, Goblin King. It's a deductive fallacy. 'There are no surviving enemy fighters outside of their territory therefore all surviving enemy fighters  must be within their territory.' This is not a logical statement. Apologies, if i've misunderstood your point.

 

Obviously, this isn't about logic but intent, but .... show me the cards which state 'surviving fighters (at least one)'.  I suspect the writer thought that the pre-condition of survival would speak for itself, but if you can show me a card which has that condition i'll have to naturally accept that the writers intended 0 to satisfy the requirement. Also RAI, Scent of Victory is an example of a card that does  punish you for killing all your enemies.

 

... that being said, the one thing everyone can agree on :D, is that a FAQ would make clear the rules writer's intention!

 

Edit: QuantumMottle: The zero thing is about reading ''no surviving enemy fighters'' as ''all surviving enemy fighters''. Can ''all surviving'' mean none? I know we disagree on the importance of ''surviving'' on the card so I don't think that takes us any further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Rob P has explained it perfectly. Interesting to see how different people interpret the same wording.  I read the card - "surviving fighters" as "models on the board" therefore the enemy "models" can not be on your side of the board, but on their side (or in a 3/4 player game someone else's side)  - unless there are more cards to come that will make sense of this wording (for example is a fighter is turned to stone, left on the board as a surviving fighter but is also considered out of action).

The only way I see this card explained if it were to be counted should all enemy fighters be taken out of action, is each war band is 20-30 fighters strong, the game takes place with only the front 3 to 7 fighters... so if at the end of the game all enemy fighters on the board are taken out of action -the other fighters of the war band (not in sight) are considered "surviving fighters" therefore contained.

There's a thought - why don't you compare the card with Annihilation - which seems to be worded in the opposite way. If you can score Contained as  "all surviving enemies in their territory" even if there are no models on the table,  then you can't then score Annihilation because you have just said there are surviving enemies... is there a technical difference between "surviving fighter" and "fighter taken out of action"?

 image.png.1a8041b5dbe6d49697a2001f10851df0.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob P said:

I think there is a flaw in your logic here, Goblin King. It's a deductive fallacy. 'There are no surviving enemy fighters outside of their territory therefore all surviving enemy fighters  must be within their territory.' This is not a logical statement. Apologies, if i've misunderstood your point.

That statement is actually true though. If they are not outside their territory, the only place they can possibly exist are in their own territory. Where else would they be? Detroit?
From my point of view it's the assumption that the amount of surviving fighters can't be zero, that's causing problems. Just because the word "surviving" is used, doesn't mean there has to actually be any survivors.
The words simply say "all surviving fighters...". That means everyone who is not dead. Everything else is assumptions and interpretations.
You can score it if a single Reaver is dead. You can score it if 2 Reavers are dead. And if 3 or 4 Reavers are dead. Why can't you if all 5 Reavers are dead?
There can be 5 survivors or they can all be dead - and everything in between. However all survivors must be in their own territory.

What is it that gives you the impression that there needs to be at least 1 surviving fighter?

As for "Scent of Victory". You are not being punished for killing enemies though. If you actually kill one you have already gained the same amount of glory as the objective would have granted. AND your enemy has one fighter less. AND you are free to cycle the objective card out to fish for a better one. With Contained (if so interpreted) you actually loose points by killing the last fighter.

 

23 minutes ago, Clawlessdragon said:

There's a thought - why don't you compare the card with Annihilation - which seems to be worded in the opposite way. If you can score Contained as  "all surviving enemies in their territory" even if there are no models on the table,  then you can't then score Annihilation because you have just said there are surviving enemies... is there a technical difference between "surviving fighter" and "fighter taken out of action"?

 image.png.1a8041b5dbe6d49697a2001f10851df0.png

Annihilation is worded as "all enemy fighters have been taken out of action". It specifically mentions that all fighters must be in a specific state. I doubt anyone will debate this card.
Contained reads "all surviving fighters must be in their own territory". It allows for fighters to be either OOA or surviving. It doesn't say "all enemy fighters must be in their own territory". THAT would mean you couldn't kill a single one! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to see things that are not in the cards or in the rules. And you ask many absurd things.
if he puts survivors there must be some live warrior and also indicates in his territory field, and when the warriors are dead they are out of the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Goblin-King said:

That statement is actually true though. If they are not outside their territory, the only place they can possibly exist are in their own territory. Where else would they be? Detroit?

 

They can be out of play/off the board/dead.

 

19 minutes ago, Goblin-King said:


From my point of view it's the assumption that the amount of surviving fighters can't be zero, that's causing problems. Just because the word "surviving" is used, doesn't mean there has to actually be any survivors.
The words simply say "all surviving fighters...". That means everyone who is not dead. Everything else is assumptions and interpretations.
You can score it if a single Reaver is dead. You can score it if 2 Reavers are dead. And if 3 or 4 Reavers are dead. Why can't you if all 5 Reavers are dead?
There can be 5 survivors or they can all be dead - and everything in between. However all survivors must be in their own territory.

What is it that gives you the impression that there needs to be at least 1 surviving fighter?

 

 

The use of the phrase  'all surviving enemy fighters'.

 

A card swap out isn't free is it? It costs an activation?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, QuantumMottle said:

Sleboda, I fundamentally disagree with what you say in your post. The phrase ‘all surviving fighters’ in my view carries no implication that any survivors are required,

We don't know each other, and therefor I don't know anything about you, so please understand that the following is not meant as an insult.  Its's exploration and discovery.

Can you please explain how you think it is justified to ignore the common English meaning of a word in determining the correct answer?

In order to score this objective, there are two qualifiers. One, you must have surviving fighters. Two, they must all be in the opponent's territory.

If there are no opposing fighters on the board, the objective fails in both counts. 

Do you have surviving fighters?

No?

Then you cannot score this.

 

The things that folks have tossed around about other cards listing  a number of survivors is NOT evidence that you don't need to have fighters around.  I get that it feels like it, but it's not.  What it means is that those examples are even harder  to score since you need more than one survivor.  

Think about the reason those cards call out the numbers.  Think about it. If they did not, one could score them rather easily ... wait for it ... by having just one single fighter surviving .  Also, some of the ones that require, say, 5 models to hit the mark cannot be achieved at all by Stormcast.  Again, these numbers listed are making it  harder to score them. They are not proof that you don't need to meet the standard, basic, real world definition of words.

 

To restate - 

If a card says you need survivors, and the word survivor mean 'dudes that are alive', then you cannot score by having nobody that survived!

 

Not math. Not rules.

Words.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...