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.

I think you're massively overstating the typo issue seeing as the only one I have in any of my books is the named Killteam being 3 Power instead of 8.
Abandoning print media would be a monumentally stupid business decision.

It absolutely was a big part of their success back in the day. When a coded was an impulse purchase instead of an investment, people would buy many codices just to know what other armies’ rules were, and then get sucked in by the fluff, or buy for the fluff because they heard some talk about interesting back story, and then get sucked in by artwork and think “well, I already have the rules.”

There’s a lot more engagement with games that supply background and rules together as opposed to rules pamphlets that can only draw in customers enticed by those particular rules. And looking at extinct games, the ones people still talk about are the ones with captivating background and aesthetic design.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Not really sure its possible to argue that GW print material is significant part of their success. I think its an archaic and consumer alienating tactic to continue a revenue stream that the Corp is afraid to lose.

But all GW print materials are full of typos, misprints, layout errors. Its actually shockingly amateur. The average highschool aged zine/manga creator has better copy-editing than GW.


Go take a look at the new 40k logo. It's off-centre, and it still has not been corrected in any of their ongoing publications. Or the absolutely horrible dimensions of the figure on the cover of the Black Templar codex. This is being published by a professional art/design studio.

GW should abandon their print media simply because it reveals too much how little they think of their customer's discretionary spending habits.

I would go that far and say that much less people would play 40k, if there would not be a russian archive with digital files for the rules, and everyone would have the pay full price books
and the current model with no good digital rules is trying to shut this down

But we will see how this is going with AoS, were free rules were an essential part of the game for a lot of players and I don't know it what is going to happen if those disappear

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Go take a look at the new 40k logo. It's off-centre, and it still has not been corrected in any of their ongoing publications.

Or it's been like that since 3rd edition and it's not a mistake

It is actually the R in "warhammer" in the new logo which is off-centre. It intersects with the lines outlining the logo. Again these are very small and trivial things.

But all the print material GW releases has errors: rules errors requiring day 1 FAQs resulting from poor typesetting and document formatting and lax proofreading. Its just clearly rushed and lazy. And again, this is published by a professional art studio.

 Mr. Grey wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:


Indeed. There really should be a way to access codex without having to buy them at full price (yes there's pirated version on the net, but i mean legally).

Its insane that unless you're willing to shell a thousand bucks, you have no idea what's the army of your opponent

Owning every single faction codex is not, and never has been, a requirement to play the game. Let's not pull the "Ugh I can't play Warhammer because GW is MAKING ME buy all the codexes and I can't afford that!" game.

Strawmanning much.....

I never said such a thing

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
It is actually the R in "warhammer" in the new logo which is off-centre. It intersects with the lines outlining the logo. Again these are very small and trivial things.

Again, it's been like that since 3rd edition...

It cannot have been intentional as the new logo is an entire rebrand of the design font. The warhammer word is clearly not properly spaced/dimensions. I guess it could have been done on purpose? But it is still objectively incorrect graphic design.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
It cannot have been intentional as the new logo is an entire rebrand of the design font. The warhammer word is clearly not properly spaced/dimensions. I guess it could have been done on purpose? But it is still objectively incorrect graphic design.

And yet again, the 'R' in the 3rd edition logo has the same 'problems' that you're going on about with the 9th edition logo as seen in the spoilered image I posted upthread. It is an intentional design choice on GW's part.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
It cannot have been intentional as the new logo is an entire rebrand of the design font. The warhammer word is clearly not properly spaced/dimensions. I guess it could have been done on purpose? But it is still objectively incorrect graphic design.

And yet again, the 'R' in the 3rd edition logo has the same 'problems' that you're going on about with the 9th edition logo as seen in the spoilered image I posted upthread. It is an intentional design choice on GW's part.

Or a mistake thoughtlessly copied. It happens more often than you might think.

eldomtom2 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
It cannot have been intentional as the new logo is an entire rebrand of the design font. The warhammer word is clearly not properly spaced/dimensions. I guess it could have been done on purpose? But it is still objectively incorrect graphic design.

And yet again, the 'R' in the 3rd edition logo has the same 'problems' that you're going on about with the 9th edition logo as seen in the spoilered image I posted upthread. It is an intentional design choice on GW's part.

Or a mistake thoughtlessly copied. It happens more often than you might think.

How dare you, GW never thoughtlessly copied a mistake! Never ever!

Page 14. of the brand new Kill Team Core Book

"The war the Imperium fights is one of both for survival and dominance at the same time."

This is literally the first sentence in the introductory paragraph of presenting the entire "lore" of the 40k universe and it is wrong! Truly astounding.

I really just cannot believe how lazy, lazy, lazy GW is with this printed product! This book retails for $50! This must have been copypastad from elsewhere as well, which means its written equally poorly in another location.

But look. I've said my piece and I will not beat the dead horse any more past this point.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Page 14. of the brand new Kill Team Core Book

"The war the Imperium fights is one of both for survival and dominance at the same time."

This is literally the first sentence in the introductory paragraph of presenting the entire "lore" of the 40k universe and it is wrong! Truly astounding.

I really just cannot believe how lazy, lazy, lazy GW is with this printed product! This book retails for $50! This must have been copypastad from elsewhere as well, which means its written equally poorly in another location.

But look. I've said my piece and I will not beat the dead horse any more past this point.

It took me three tries to figure out the issue in that sentence. It's definitely a mistake and I'm not arguing that. I'm just pointing out that sometimes, things slip past multiple editing runs, multiple times.

There was a version of the 40k logo, used on the Indomitus trailer(s), which didn't have the janky R. They just stuck with the off-centre version for everything else for some reason...

 Geifer wrote:

When we're talking about steps backward it's dropping e-book codices that's a real bogus decision by GW. It's likely not even that they feared for physical book sales because of the electronic competition, but because it was competition for the 40k app (and coming AoS app) and GW would rather maximize that subscription money than risk people opting for electronic codices if given the choice.

The thing is, that doesn’t justify the retrograde step either, because you get a code in the physical codex to get the rules in the app, so you don’t have to subscribe anyway. And there is literally no difference in income for GW in someone buying a physical codex, using the code and not subscribing than someone buying a digital codex and not subscribing.

It’s honestly a stupid, baffling and backwards decision and it really annoys me as I don’t want a pile of physical books with a limited lifespan clogging up my shelves, I like having the rules updated regularly with the latest FAQs and the digital codices (particularly the iBooks) were a quality product with useful features (rules pop ups, cross links, etc.).

 Gert wrote:
I think you're massively overstating the typo issue seeing as the only one I have in any of my books is the named Killteam being 3 Power instead of 8.
Abandoning print media would be a monumentally stupid business decision.

It's a given that any book you have will have at least one typo in it - the questions are a, whether you've spotted it or not; and b, whether the typo is significant.

For you, the PL one you mention is one you've spotted because it ties to the rules, and that makes it significant - and more visible.

In the case of Gregor's sentence from the background, it's less obvious, not hugely significant (though no doubt annoying) and someone reading casually is unlikely to notice it.

Which other books do you have, btw? I'm sure we could provide examples of typos in each of them.

I do agree with you, though, that abandoning print media wouldn't be a good idea - but neither is abandoning those people that just want to buy a digital codex from you, assuming there are enough of them to make the cost worthwhile (and I have no numbers on that either way).

And to top it all, there is no mechanism to just buy the codex in the app; you have to buy the physical codex, because even subscribing just gets you the data sheets, not all of the rules.

I also think the new system is trash and was clearly an attempt by GW to contain all of its eggs in one basket rather than relying on a 3rd party to host its material.
As for the typos, if people can quickly provide reference to them then in the nicest way possible, you have way to much free time on your hands.
In general, if you're editing large walls of text, which the Codex editors absolutely are, then you're not going to catch every single word out of place. I once had an essay that had a typo that I missed, Word missed, my writing assistant app missed, and the lecturer marking the essay missed. That was only a 3k-ish word document as well.

"The war the Imperium fights is one of both for survival and dominance at the same time."

For non native speakers, what is the problem with it? I've read the occasional police headline that sounded more wrong.

lol due to lack of content to discuss on warhammer plus, people are picking apart the typography on the 40k logo...and grammatical structuring of sentences......haha

and yet theres people still insisting it's good value....

 Geifer wrote:

When we're talking about steps backward it's dropping e-book codices that's a real bogus decision by GW. It's likely not even that they feared for physical book sales because of the electronic competition, but because it was competition for the 40k app (and coming AoS app) and GW would rather maximize that subscription money than risk people opting for electronic codices if given the choice.

Seeing you don't get rules by subbing and don't need sub to use the app for your book...how is that working? Guy buy physical book, he uses it with app. No need to sub.

a_typical_hero wrote:

"The war the Imperium fights is one of both for survival and dominance at the same time."

For non native speakers, what is the problem with it? I've read the occasional police headline that sounded more wrong.

The sentence is grammatically weird.

They should remove either word 'both' or 'for' , having them one after the other is weird...

Danny76 wrote:
Is there a thread just for the Warhammer animations and discussion.
Not their worth or all this chat (which this thread really can now just be about content added as opposed to each week another discussion of Is It Worth It Now Yet?).

None that I'm aware of. If you start one, be sure to post a link for those of us interested in such discussion.

a_typical_hero wrote:

"The war the Imperium fights is one of both for survival and dominance at the same time."

For non native speakers, what is the problem with it? I've read the occasional police headline that sounded more wrong.

You want to write it in one of these ways:

The war the Imperium fights is one of survival and dominance at the same time.

The war the Imperium fights is both for survival and dominance at the same time.

You can't have both "one of" and "for" in that position as they fulfill the same function of defining the "war" in a mutually exclusive way. It's just not grammatically sound.

There's a question of elegance in using both "both" and "at the same time" at the same time, but that's a stylistic consideration and doesn't make the grammar wrong.

tneva82 wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

When we're talking about steps backward it's dropping e-book codices that's a real bogus decision by GW. It's likely not even that they feared for physical book sales because of the electronic competition, but because it was competition for the 40k app (and coming AoS app) and GW would rather maximize that subscription money than risk people opting for electronic codices if given the choice.

Seeing you don't get rules by subbing and don't need sub to use the app for your book...how is that working? Guy buy physical book, he uses it with app. No need to sub.

In reply to this but also what Jadenim said, I'm letting my opinion of GW's workings get in the way of writing a more comprehensive post. Which is to say that I don't just expect GW to make stupid decisions but also expect them to be capable of justifying those stupid decisions with equally stupid reasoning.

So yes, I agree what I said isn't objectively sound, but I do not for one second believe that stops GW from rationalizing their decisions like that.

 GoldenHorde wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

"The war the Imperium fights is one of both for survival and dominance at the same time."

For non native speakers, what is the problem with it? I've read the occasional police headline that sounded more wrong.

The sentence is grammatically weird.

They should remove either word 'both' or 'for' , having them one after the other is weird...

It's having the 'of' and 'for' that is the issue, the 'both' is fine, could be either:

"The war the Imperium fights is one both for survival and dominance at the same time."

or

"The war the Imperium fights is one of both survival and dominance at the same time."

or even

"The war the Imperium fights is one for both survival and dominance at the same time."

or

"The war the Imperium fights is one both of survival and dominance at the same time."

Though I imagine some of those versions are likely to be considered more grammatically correct than others, but they all read more correctly than the published one.

 Gert wrote:
I think you're massively overstating the typo issue seeing as the only one I have in any of my books is the named Killteam being 3 Power instead of 8.
Abandoning print media would be a monumentally stupid business decision.

The first two printings of the spanish version of the warcry core book were missing the "B" letter on its spine. That's pretty darn big.

Tavis75 wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

"The war the Imperium fights is one of both for survival and dominance at the same time."

For non native speakers, what is the problem with it? I've read the occasional police headline that sounded more wrong.

The sentence is grammatically weird.

They should remove either word 'both' or 'for' , having them one after the other is weird...

It's having the 'of' and 'for' that is the issue, the 'both' is fine, could be either:

"The war the Imperium fights is one both for survival and dominance at the same time."

or

"The war the Imperium fights is one of both survival and dominance at the same time."

or even

"The war the Imperium fights is one for both survival and dominance at the same time."

or

"The war the Imperium fights is one both of survival and dominance at the same time."

Though I imagine some of those versions are likely to be considered more grammatically correct than others, but they all read more correctly than the published one.

Also, using "both" and "at the same time" is kind of redundant.

It kind of boggles my mind that a sentence like the one being discussed could make it through the editing process as is. Even if GW didn't put as many eyes on it as they should, presumably somebody first typed the sentence in Word (where Word would tell them it needed corrections) and then the typesetting software should have done the same thing for the actual codex publication. Do they just ignore the blue squiggly lines?

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
It kind of boggles my mind that a sentence like the one being discussed could make it through the editing process as is. Even if GW didn't put as many eyes on it as they should, presumably somebody first typed the sentence in Word (where Word would tell them it needed corrections) and then the typesetting software should have done the same thing for the actual codex publication. Do they just ignore the blue squiggly lines?

GW did not have an editing process until recently, first draft was send direct to printing

 kodos wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
It kind of boggles my mind that a sentence like the one being discussed could make it through the editing process as is. Even if GW didn't put as many eyes on it as they should, presumably somebody first typed the sentence in Word (where Word would tell them it needed corrections) and then the typesetting software should have done the same thing for the actual codex publication. Do they just ignore the blue squiggly lines?

GW did not have an editing process until recently, first draft was send direct to printing

350 Million British Pounds yearly revenue.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
It kind of boggles my mind that a sentence like the one being discussed could make it through the editing process as is. Even if GW didn't put as many eyes on it as they should, presumably somebody first typed the sentence in Word (where Word would tell them it needed corrections) and then the typesetting software should have done the same thing for the actual codex publication. Do they just ignore the blue squiggly lines?

GW did not have an editing process until recently, first draft was send direct to printing

350 Million British Pounds yearly revenue.

why put the effort in if it sells anyway?