Over at BGG forums, there is an interesting debate, and I would like some clarification. An official ruling on this particular rule would be just terrific.

Here is the basic gist of the problem:

By the rules, a ruined region is ineligible to receive no OW tokens. However, certain OW cards give the the player with the lowest threat (i.e. the guy in last place) the opportunity to choose where to place certain OW tokens. If, on the off chance, the regions that he can choose between are ruined, does he forfeit the choice?

What takes priority? Is it possible to, say, choose to place tokens in the ruined regions, find that they are ineligible and then place no tokens? This is particularly important considering that the player with the lowest threat is given this advantage as a way of preventing runaway leaders, especially if the other option is to place those tokens in a region that would either disadvantage him or advantage an opponent.

The rules are not specific on this matter, and thus the dispute. Here is a link to the BGG thread and all of the various arguments either way. What we need is a ruling from FFG.

We don't get much designer input on these threads. So i sent in an email to FFG asking this question.

I'd argue that the spirit of the rules are to have tokens in ruined regions have no effect, as opposed to strictly are not eligible. So I'd say that the full choices on token placement remain, and if the token cannot be placed in the region then it has no effect.