Unofficial Response to "Logical and Grammatical Errors in the Game Manual

If you searched the Q&A beforehand, you would have found this:

Illegal introduction of the Cube will be counted against you, i.e. your opponents will score for that illegally introduced Cube. Also, the terms Near and Far Zones, as used in the manual and with respect to your alliance, mean the Zones on the other side of the fence from your alliance station.

For future reference, this thread is referring to this question:

And I agree with the side note. “opponents” definitely needs an apostrophe. But it should be

since it’s plural and possessive.
@ethanialw I don’t know if you can edit official Q&A posts, but you might want to correct your correction. You might not have to though, since I figure Karthik knows his apostrophe "do"s and "don’t"s. (EDIT: That may have came out a bit rude-sounding. I am not trying to be insulting. ethanialw is really smart for figuring out a mistake that no one figured out and/or posted about. And the people that write the game manual have a lot to perfect other than one small lapse in apostrophe use.)

You made me laugh. I was thinking that it would be “opponent’s” if the other alliance was considered a unitary construct, but should be " opponents’ " if both robots or all the people on the other alliance’s drive team are the noun(s) in question. Good to find a grammar nerd on a robotics site.

Thanks for your response @AppleDavidJeans and @Vex 9185, I understand the rules of the game, just was pointing out something that could be interpreted as “If we don’t put our cube into play, it counts as being scored in the Far Zone on our opponents’ (thanks @Vex 9185, although I tend to think of an alliance as an opponent, not the other teams in the plural, but that’s just me (and sometimes @Rick TYler?)) side of the field. EASY POINTS WOOO!”

I guess it’s the editor’s call. Both apostrophe placements do make sense.
And yes I am a grammar nerd.