The card reads:

You accomplish this objective if you have at least two forts and/or cities in provinces adjacent to a savage province (excluding your kingdom).

Does "a savage province" mean 'a single savage province' or 'any savage province'?

In other words, do the forts/cities have to be next to the same savage province?

Thanks,

AMBusam

it looks to be "any' savage region, but usually, forts & cities are packed up in the same places...

    It does read like the 2 coastal cards doesnt it? I dont see any problem (unless Im losing) to it being any provinces. Never had it come up before.

Ran in to this the first time this weekend.  We have always played the two forts/cities must be adjacent to the same province, but played for the first time with some folks who were adamant the adjacency need not be with just a single savage province.  I can see it either way, and would sure like to hear what the designers had it mind. 

TK

I don't think this instance is much like the difficulty that has been encountered with the costal objectives. But I think the contrast can inform here. Since you brought it up I looked over all the cards to compare grammar.

War Against the Pirates reads: "...at least two forts and/or cities in coastal provinces (excluding your kingdom)." It pluralizes the statement with 'provinces', obviously meaning multiple. Sea Power uses the same form.

We can assume the game maintains unity of form for intention. If the Border Wars card is intended to refer to multiple provinces, it would use the same grammar as the sea cards. Since it does not ("...a savage province..." rather than " ...savage provinces..."), the only logical conclusion is that it refers to a single savage province.  

An EXCELLENT point!  Cybernex, where are you, pal?

TK

     Sounds perfect- thanks for the legwork.

So far we've played it to mean any savage province, not just a single one. In games with fewer than 4, it becomes a lot trickier to achieve otherwise.