A player of the spanish forum says that when the OL raze an island with this plot, it does not count for the total of 5 cities that he must raze to win. I think that it is considered a city, so if I raze Cerridor Sea and Shrouded Gulf (islands as cities), and Orris and Gafford it is obvious that the OL has razed a total of 4 cities and he gains 1+4 CT each week.

I think that this plot has clear rules, but he thinks that I am wrong... What do you think?

gran_orco said:

What text tells you that an island counts as a city?
I have to go from memory here, so this is provisional upon checking the cards... but I don't recall anything about the islands counting as cities (nor anything about counting extra weekly CT).
I agree that the plot probably has clear rules, but not the ones you have (provisionally) invented.

Oh, and if that isnt clear, I think (subject to checking the actual cards) that you are completely wrong.

Corbon said:

The plot leviathan says that you must put tokens in 5 locations. That locations are islands and that islands can be sieged and razed as cities with defence 3. Check the cards before speaking, please, because I can be wrong with something, but you cannot say that we are inventing rules if your memory fails...

the card obviously grants this only to state a known method by which the OL can break the bindings. it means that the overlord must have a LT on the location and build three siege tokens then roll to break the bindings. anything more is just creative liberty and munchkinism. once broken the plot moves forward without having to spend XP and each binding broken hampers the heros quite a bit. breaking all five bindings releases the leviathan and causes the game to end.

gran_orco said:

That is not quite correct.
Each binding token (not island) may be sieged and razed by the overlord's lieutenants as though they were cities with a defense of 3. This may not be reduced.
That does not make the islands cities. It does not make the binding tokens cities. It merely says that they may be sieged and razed as though they were cities. This is only the action of sieging and razing, not the results thereafter.

You are completely wrong. You have invented (probably through misunderstanding, not deliberate adding) additional rules to say that the binding tokens are cities where they are not . They merely may be sieged and razed as though they were cities. Outside of sieging and razing no other city rules apply , including rules for razed cities.

Sorry. This might be one of those subtleties easily lost in a second language, but it is very clear.

Corbon said:

It was the same in my language, so I could not understand how I could misunderstand it When I read "this defence 3 cannot be lower", I thought that it was refering to the "siege machines" card that affects cities, so it should be considered a city in all aspects. Moreover, there was another player that understood the same.

So probably I was totally obfuscate with what I thought it was easy to understand. Ok. Is it sure?

gran_orco said:

It is sure.
It is considered the same as a city for seiging and razing (only) so seige engines might apply without the extra rule (some would argue it for sure). With the extra rule there is no need to even look into the possibility.