Thank you so much for taking the time to play Anomalies and share such thoughtful feedback. You’re absolutely right, some parts of the rules would benefit from a tighter second pass.
The Husk/Veil confusion is a great catch. The original intent was: Veil covers perception and sensitivity to anomalies, while Husk handles endurance and resistance, so yes, the “notice anomalies” test should use Veil, not Husk. I’ll make sure that’s clarified and consistent across all examples in the next revision.
As for the risk thresholds, you nailed one of the most common pain points. The system was meant to represent accumulating stress (rising values toward a threshold), not descending negative numbers, but the wording and signs can definitely be confusing. I’m planning to rewrite that section with a clearer example and a visual tracker.
Finally, thanks for noting the “ghost chapters”. That’s a layout artifact from the automatic Table of Contents generation in the PDF. It’ll be cleaned up in version 1.1.
I’m really happy to hear you still had fun despite those issues. I want v1.1 to clarify all the confusing stuff and be a more concise and cleaner version. Your comments really help make that happen. Thanks again.