Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, looking though my Kill Team ePub and I noticed two things right off the bat.

First off, in the contents, 4 entries are missing the dots to go to the page line.

Secondly, on page 80, the title for the Blood Angels name generator is "BLOOD ANGw"

This makes me think, does GW hire proofreaders at all? A simple spellcheck would have pointed out the BLOOD ANGw problem.

Proof readers? Likely someone on the team does some level of proofreading, but the errors are going to slip through in my experiance. I can't count the number of books I've read through the years that have errors despite being proofed by professional editors. From novels to textbooks to military regulations, errors inevitably sneak in.

That said, at least they can fix the digital version with a quick update.

No or if they do nobody does that job well.

Most of my 7th ed codexes had errors like s hooting or Dread457nought.

Neither of those typos are in my physical copy, sounds like a bug in your ePub.

While I think GW has been on a roll lately, I will agree that their need of a genuine technical editor (or several) is holding them back. Knowing how cagey GW is about hiring staff for almost anything, I suspect this will continue to plague them. The poor quality of the written materials for Necromunda was a large part of what helped me decided not to buy into the product.

Their older material was arguably much better in the writing department.

You have 2 issues one is proof reading the source copy, this is the only part that is common between the EPub and print.

The source copy will then go to printing company and you get the physical copy, this process is common and should have a very low rate of error introduction.

The EPub will go through a compiling programme to turn the source copy into the EPub. These things are notoriously bugged.
I think our record at work is over 200 compiles with the company having to fix the compiling programme to get an error free EPub.

Nope, and if they do whoever they have employed needs to be taken out back and shot.

Context - I am a lawyer, it's my game.

Still, I've never seen anything as bad as White Wolf's page XX error. Then again WW did own that and eventually put a page XX in the Malkavian clan book.

White Wolf tends to have a lot of proofreading errors that's for sure, what's worse is some of the newer books seem to have had overall errors in gameplay as well.

Ice_can wrote:

The EPub will go through a compiling programme to turn the source copy into the EPub. These things are notoriously bugged.
I think our record at work is over 200 compiles with the company having to fix the compiling programme to get an error free EPub.

Yeah a lot of books I read on Kindle come with typos and mistakes and "oh the scanner got that wrong didn't it". It's honestly very annoying and must be pretty clear since I can spot them and I don't normally twig to such things.

That said the worst was a company who published a book on plants that my father got and it was clear that not only was the OCR getting things wrong; no one had given it a Latin dictionary for the Latin names it was using. A LOT of mistakes were present which was a shame.

Can't speak for the epub, but my copy of the Kill Team assembly guide (for the GSC and Skitarii) has the English description of the radiation ability that Vanguard have written in French. I can kinda figure out what it means from some school-level French I know, but it's not quite the same thing

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, looking though my Kill Team ePub and I noticed two things right off the bat.

First off, in the contents, 4 entries are missing the dots to go to the page line.

Secondly, on page 80, the title for the Blood Angels name generator is "BLOOD ANGw"

This makes me think, does GW hire proofreaders at all? A simple spellcheck would have pointed out the BLOOD ANGw problem.

To be fair, they are now releasing so much content that it would be hard to proof read to the extent they should. But if they want to be a publishing company then they have to adapt, now I rarely get a novel that doesn't have really bad grammar mistakes. The writers themselves shouldn't allow this to happen, they should care about their work rather than just spew them out like an assembly line, though I'll reserve judgment until I find out how much they get paid. As for e-books there are always bugs especially in readers that can read more than one type i.e epub mob

Another thread because an ebook isn’t working properly? Sheesh. To be fair, companies skimp on ebooks, major publishers included. I once emailed the editor at Orion because the Dune eBook had ‘Bremen’ instead of ‘Fremen’. Sliiiight autocorrect fail, there.

Anyway, OP has until tomorrow to get his application in to join the Rules team.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Anyway, OP has until tomorrow to get his application in to join the Rules team.

Better get on that one!

Skaorn wrote:
Still, I've never seen anything as bad as White Wolf's page XX error. Then again WW did own that and eventually put a page XX in the Malkavian clan book.

In fairness that's also not a super rare error. I've seen it in other products too.know how it happens it's pretty forgivable if it's a rare occurance.

One of my peeves...so soapbox in place here...you were warned.

The basic cause of errors of this type lies in perception. Too many people think any "smart" person can do certain jobs without wasting all that time in training and/or schooling etc. Proofreading/editing/writing all fall into this category. Just because you know how to type and spell etc does NOT mean you will be a good editor or proofreader. Those jobs require a certain mindset as well as training and experience.
You have only bothered to point out the clear typos. The number of grammar errors such as incomplete sentences (fine in dialog or certain circumstances such as sounds etc but NOT on narration/description), subject verb agreement, dangling participles etc etc in just the Astra Militarum Codex is shameful. No one is perfect as stated above, and everyone misses things...but there is a level where it becomes comical.
GW is like many companies who run what I consider a semi-professional office. They do not see the need or perhaps do not wish to spend the cost of a real proofreader/editor, since they have a group of people who are familiar with the software and write all the time (some of them well, some of them not as well). The thought being anyone who can write fluff or rules should be able to proofread. It is incorrect. I have an advanced degree in history, even in post graduate work I paid proofreaders to go through my thesis and other writings. They always found issues. Even after I had used the common trick of reading it backwards multiple times. There is a skill involved, a certain way of concrete, black and white thinking that ignores the actual content, meaning, and emotion of the words for only their stark relation to each other and the rules of grammar. In my experience, great editors/proofreaders are rarely good writers of anything but the broad term covered by technical writing. Good writers of emotional, action, thriller whatever stories make poor proofreaders.
Even a writer as popular as say Stephen King. Even after he has perhaps edited his own manuscript ten times, a publisher will still send it to their own proofreaders.
I spent more than a decade working in a college office with dozens of people with degrees. I still had to edit/proofread all memos etc sent from the office, and certainly had my own proofread by multiple people who had the knack.
Until GW pays for this service, you will continue to find these problems.

Off soapbox...

(edit: just re-read this and found 2 errors...see? They do sneak through because I do not have the knack and suspect there are more I haven't found)

BrianDavion wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
Still, I've never seen anything as bad as White Wolf's page XX error. Then again WW did own that and eventually put a page XX in the Malkavian clan book.

In fairness that's also not a super rare error. I've seen it in other products too.know how it happens it's pretty forgivable if it's a rare occurance.

Yeah, it was just so common in the first werewolf book that it gained infamy. I remember running into it so many times in there, trying to look things up, I actually thought it was a real page that I could just not find lol.

edwardmyst wrote:


The basic cause of errors of this type lies in perception. Too many people think any "smart" person can do certain jobs without wasting all that time in training and/or schooling etc. Proofreading/editing/writing all fall into this category. Just because you know how to type and spell etc does NOT mean you will be a good editor or proofreader. Those jobs require a certain mindset as well as training and experience.

Well said! I took a stab at this back when my PBEM* group wrote for Dream Pod 9**. I had to proofread and error check for 6 other writers before handing off to the editor (which is probably the wrong way to go about it, but I wasn't handing off the document to the editor before error checking everyone's Vehicle Creation System math), and it was definitely more difficult than writing my sections of the book, and I can't even be sure of how good a job I did because the editor made changes as well, never mind the layout guy having to make accommodations for the art.

*That's Play By E-Mail for you young folks.
**Jovian Chronicles Mechanical Catalog Two: Civilian Equipment & Spacecraft. By the title you can tell it was the most exciting book ever written.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Can't speak for the epub, but my copy of the Kill Team assembly guide (for the GSC and Skitarii) has the English description of the radiation ability that Vanguard have written in French. I can kinda figure out what it means from some school-level French I know, but it's not quite the same thing

Yep, mine too.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, looking though my Kill Team ePub and I noticed two things right off the bat.

First off, in the contents, 4 entries are missing the dots to go to the page line.

Secondly, on page 80, the title for the Blood Angels name generator is "BLOOD ANGw"

This makes me think, does GW hire proofreaders at all? A simple spellcheck would have pointed out the BLOOD ANGw problem.

Complaining about proof reading but yet makes mistakes as well. I guess you were not proof reading as well.

Skaorn wrote:
Still, I've never seen anything as bad as White Wolf's page XX error. Then again WW did own that and eventually put a page XX in the Malkavian clan book.

7th ed. WHFB Lizardmen had literally the same error. Was known as "Page kiss kiss" around here.

I think, on the subject of poor editing the WORST product I ever had the misfortune of paying for was the Guide to Covert Operations for Mechwarrior third edition.
I was told by someone involved with the prduction of it later on that "yeah we actually didn't have an editior/proof reader when we made it" even then it was just so... horriable, rules that wehere eaither obviously broken or just plain old didn't work.

Davor wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, looking though my Kill Team ePub and I noticed two things right off the bat.

First off, in the contents, 4 entries are missing the dots to go to the page line.

Secondly, on page 80, the title for the Blood Angels name generator is "BLOOD ANGw"

This makes me think, does GW hire proofreaders at all? A simple spellcheck would have pointed out the BLOOD ANGw problem.

Complaining about proof reading but yet makes mistakes as well. I guess you were not proof reading as well.

What mistake? Also, even if I did make one, this is a post on an internet forum, not an overpriced rulebook for a company that has for decades gotten away with abusive pricing due to market dominance.

I think that the errors found on the discussion portions of the internet are best left ignored. One is liable to go insane if they hang on every redundant apostrophe, case of "could of/should of/would of," and so on. The point in the OP stands, IMO, regardless.

BrianDavion wrote:
I think, on the subject of poor editing the WORST product I ever had the misfortune of paying for was the Guide to Covert Operations for Mechwarrior third edition.
I was told by someone involved with the prduction of it later on that "yeah we actually didn't have an editior/proof reader when we made it" even then it was just so... horriable, rules that wehere eaither obviously broken or just plain old didn't work.

That was FanPro, right? Catalyst Game Labs is carrying on the tradition; Shadowrun 5th edition has abysmal editing as well - rules that don't make sense, paragraphs that end prematurely, double sentences, references to rules that are not yet published. I pretty much own all of 3rd and 4th edition, but I won't touch 5th, it's so bad.

BaconCatBug wrote:

Davor wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, looking though my Kill Team ePub and I noticed two things right off the bat.

First off, in the contents, 4 entries are missing the dots to go to the page line.

Secondly, on page 80, the title for the Blood Angels name generator is "BLOOD ANGw"

This makes me think, does GW hire proofreaders at all? A simple spellcheck would have pointed out the BLOOD ANGw problem.

Complaining about proof reading but yet makes mistakes as well. I guess you were not proof reading as well.

What mistake? Also, even if I did make one, this is a post on an internet forum, not an overpriced rulebook for a company that has for decades gotten away with abusive pricing due to market dominance.

You made each line one sentence. It could have come together as one small paragraphs instead of the 4 you made. I just find it funny when someone wants to say something about someone or not (not saying you are wrong by the way) they do the same thing when they complain.

Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:I think that the errors found on the discussion portions of the internet are best left ignored. One is liable to go insane if they hang on every redundant apostrophe, case of "could of/should of/would of," and so on. The point in the OP stands, IMO, regardless.

Never said he was wrong, quite agree with him/her but when complaining or making out mistakes of other people, they shouldn't be doing the same thing. How does the saying go "Pot meet Kettle"? Also why should we ignore errors found on a discussion board? This is how the proof reading fails in todays age. If we can't even correct our own error's how can we expect others to do so as well? Or is this just a "Do as I say, not as I do"?

 John Prins wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I think, on the subject of poor editing the WORST product I ever had the misfortune of paying for was the Guide to Covert Operations for Mechwarrior third edition.
I was told by someone involved with the prduction of it later on that "yeah we actually didn't have an editior/proof reader when we made it" even then it was just so... horriable, rules that wehere eaither obviously broken or just plain old didn't work.

That was FanPro, right? Catalyst Game Labs is carrying on the tradition; Shadowrun 5th edition has abysmal editing as well - rules that don't make sense, paragraphs that end prematurely, double sentences, references to rules that are not yet published. I pretty much own all of 3rd and 4th edition, but I won't touch 5th, it's so bad.

yeah that was fanpro. and having read the SR 5th stuff, nah it's no where NEAR as bad as Guide to Covert Ops.Guide to covert ops was absolutely horriable. even some of the lore presented was umm... questionable.

Davor wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:

Davor wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, looking though my Kill Team ePub and I noticed two things right off the bat.

First off, in the contents, 4 entries are missing the dots to go to the page line.

Secondly, on page 80, the title for the Blood Angels name generator is "BLOOD ANGw"

This makes me think, does GW hire proofreaders at all? A simple spellcheck would have pointed out the BLOOD ANGw problem.

Complaining about proof reading but yet makes mistakes as well. I guess you were not proof reading as well.

What mistake? Also, even if I did make one, this is a post on an internet forum, not an overpriced rulebook for a company that has for decades gotten away with abusive pricing due to market dominance.

You made each line one sentence. It could have come together as one small paragraphs instead of the 4 you made. I just find it funny when someone wants to say something about someone or not (not saying you are wrong by the way) they do the same thing when they complain.

Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:I think that the errors found on the discussion portions of the internet are best left ignored. One is liable to go insane if they hang on every redundant apostrophe, case of "could of/should of/would of," and so on. The point in the OP stands, IMO, regardless.

Never said he was wrong, quite agree with him/her but when complaining or making out mistakes of other people, they shouldn't be doing the same thing. How does the saying go "Pot meet Kettle"? Also why should we ignore errors found on a discussion board? This is how the proof reading fails in todays age. If we can't even correct our own error's how can we expect others to do so as well? Or is this just a "Do as I say, not as I do"?

Because it's an exercise in futility, and very few people appreciate the constructive criticism. By all means, if you think it will make a difference or you derive satisfaction from it, then go for it. Might wanna correct that redundant apostrophe, though (unless it was cleverly intentional).

I don't correct everyone on the net, just the people who complain about it and then do the exact thing.

Davor wrote:
I don't correct everyone on the net, just the people who complain about it and then do the exact thing.

Which is an odd thing to do in this particular case, really. It's perfectly justified to complain about a professional not doing something right, even if you can't or won't do that thing right yourself. That is, after all, why we pay professionals to do those things.


Having said that, I do find it a little hard to believe that anyone who has been around this hobby for longer than 5 minutes would only just now be noticing that GW don't put a lot of effort into proof-reading. My personal favourite proof-reading highlight was an editorial in the Oz edition of White Dwarf some years back (when they had their own editorial team) apologising for the errors in the previous issue, that had typos in it.


And having said that, in the grand scheme of things a list missing a few bullets is hardly the stuff of nightmares.