Ralph Mazza i agree in principle that rules cannot be “wrong” if nobody is being disadvantaged by a given interpretation. Nonetheless, TED fails to communicate the designer’s intent in several cases. e.g. the definition of “Turn” is critical for how healing (via the City) works. The intuitive definition (implied via the rules) is not, it turns out, the correct/intended one (per Scott on BGG). In other cases, the misinteractions between cards makes it painfully obvious that they were not tested together, requiring players to make their own ruling. When i buy a board game, i expect it to contain the rules, not to be a “decide/figure it out yourself” product (unless it’s clearly marketed as such). Especially a 2nd edition. These types of mistakes are expected for first-time designers on first editions, but Scott Almes has quite a library of games under his belt and really has no business making these types of rookie mistakes.