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.

Forgive me if this topic has been visited before, but while browsing the 5th ed. SM dex I found a inconsistency with the Demolisher cannon from the vindicator. On page 80 it shows it as a ordnance 1 weapons, but on page 144 where it lists all the wargear it is listed at an Ordnance 1 barrage. Me and my buddies have already decided that it should just be ordnance as that is how it has been since 4th.

Basically the point I'm trying to make is that these typos run rampant in codices and rulebooks constantly (Side armor on the eldar serpent is 2 in the rulebook, i'm sure there are more just not sure), and can lead to two things: uninformed new players playing incorrectly, or nerdy power gamers taking advantage of the typo and exploiting the game. I'm sure a majority of players will see and understand these typos and play as should, but there will always be those exceptions. GW does release FAQ's, but for any of the typo's that I have come across.

Anyway enough ranting on the topic, what are your opinions on errors like these and how do they affect you? Have you ever played against anyone that has played incorrectly just due to a typo?

Thanks for you time.

There are a few annyoing ones in the Ork Dex. Like Biker nobs only having 1 wound. It was fixed by an FAQ, but still....

another case, I don't know about the english version, but on the side of the german Ork book it reads: Codeex: Orks

Ork Codex says kommando have I2 while the summary in the main rule book says I3, not sure which is right. I assume I2 sense that is what most orks are, but who knows.

Proof Reading isn't an exact science you know.

Something like this, assuming it is all spelt correctly would slip easily, as when proof reading, you are checking spelling, not content most of the time.

Look at the Space Marine Captain stats. There are 3, yea three, different stat lines that don't match up. The new C: SM, the Rulebook, and the AoBR box set booklet. All three of them have different stats. Explain that one... I don't normally care about typo's, but having 3 stat lines not match up is just bad.

Nope, that's spell checking; Microsoft Word'll do that for you. Proof reading is part of the editor’s job. Looking for errors other than misspellings is definitely part of the process.

oni wrote:Look at the Space Marine Captain stats. There are 3, yea three, different stat lines that don't match up. The new C: SM, the Rulebook, and the AoBR box set booklet. All three of them have different stats. Explain that one... I don't normally care about typo's, but having 3 stat lines not match up is just bad.

Codex Stats overrule any others. Nice and simple.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Proof Reading isn't an exact science you know.

Something like this, assuming it is all spelt correctly would slip easily, as when proof reading, you are checking spelling, not content most of the time.

Running a spell checker is NOT proof reading. Proof reading IS an exact science in which a person with a very extensive notebook reads through every line of a text BY HAND and finds these issues.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

oni wrote:Look at the Space Marine Captain stats. There are 3, yea three, different stat lines that don't match up. The new C: SM, the Rulebook, and the AoBR box set booklet. All three of them have different stats. Explain that one... I don't normally care about typo's, but having 3 stat lines not match up is just bad.

Codex Stats overrule any others. Nice and simple.

While this is completely true, what about codices with two different stats in the same book (my first example for instance)?

First of all, you'll need to remind me of the difference, IIRC nowadays, it's purely to with LoS (Ordnance needing it, Ordnance Barrage not).

Even so, it's an easy enough mistake, depending upon at which stage the proof reading is done, and how the pages are printed together. As I said, as long as both are written with correct spelling, things like this will happen.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:First of all, you'll need to remind me of the difference, IIRC nowadays, it's purely to with LoS (Ordnance needing it, Ordnance Barrage not).

Even so, it's an easy enough mistake, depending upon at which stage the proof reading is done, and how the pages are printed together. As I said, as long as both are written with correct spelling, things like this will happen.

Yes you are basically correct about Ordnance and Barrage. There are some other special rules (pinning, Ordnance vs vehicle) that are different between both, but thats not the main point anyway.

While I agree, people make mistakes, it's human nature. However, do you see other books with typos and errors such as this? I don't play other minis games so I wouldn't know about other companies or games, but I do know that any company should have a level of professionalism to at least make sure that there are no inconsistencies or errors in their own products. I'm sure their books go through several iterations and at each level someone should be making sure that all the information in their books are correct. Finally, while complaining about typos doesn't fix the copies that are out already, I would hope GW has the sense to fix those errors in future copies of the book.

It's the kind of thing they would do if they cared about the quality of the rules.

Draw your own conclusions from that one.

I'd bet if you looked that GW's own internal accounting they rate the Design Studio as a loss-leader related to marketing rather than a revenue-enhancing part of the production line.

I'd bet good Mexican pesos you'd be be right on that nurgle old boy.

Have you read GWs latest profit statements. They can't afford an editor. The tools in MS Word is all you get.

Yeah actual play testing and proofreading for content has always been a bit lax within games workshop.

MDG, that's like giving a they're/their/there error a pass because the word is spelled correctly but used improperly. As others have said, checking spelling is only one component of proofreading. That's why you should always give documents a full read and never rely on computer spell checks.

Now then, that's not to say mistakes don't happen. They do, even with good proofreading. And codices are reasonably large and complex documents.

But I imagine that GW doesn't invest much into that type of quality control. They probably put a lot of the responsibility on the writers, but writers can't effectively proof their own work. They're too close to it.

Does anyone know if they have a dedicated editorial/proofreading team (outside of WD)?

There are external proof-reading services that they could pay to check stuff for them.

George Spiggott wrote:Nope, that's spell checking; Microsoft Word'll do that for you. Proof reading is part of the editor’s job. Looking for errors other than misspellings is definitely part of the process.

Eye halve a spelling chequer, it came with my pea sea. It plainly marques four my revue Miss steaks eye kin knot sea ...


something like this will slip through Microsoft Word.. all of those words are spelled correctly, but they are all the wrong words.. Nothing, I repeat, nothing is better than someone who takes their time and proofreads properly.

beer is better, but I digress...

I miss the days of Chapter Approved where you could literally cut n paste into your codex the typos and mistakes. Even if it were online only, thereby costing them no printing cost. But no.... "What about the 1% of gamers who don't have the internet?" Living document sis where its at.

Kilkrazy wrote:There are external proof-reading services that they could pay to check stuff for them.

I know a great line editor who accepts either checks, cash, or sprues.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Proof Reading isn't an exact science you know.

Something like this, assuming it is all spelt correctly would slip easily, as when proof reading, you are checking spelling, not content most of the time.

Proof reading is neither a science nor difficult. If people who just got the book can find these errors then why didn't GW notice? Stop making excuses for them.

two_heads_talking wrote:Eye halve a spelling chequer, it came with my pea sea. It plainly marques four my revue Miss steaks eye kin knot sea ...

something like this will slip through Microsoft Word.. all of those words are spelled correctly, but they are all the wrong words.. Nothing, I repeat, nothing is better than someone who takes their time and proofreads properly.

Indeed, just as "Ordnance 1 barrage" was correctly spelled but used the wrong words. Unless GW changed their minds and didn't tell us. Which is the real problem here because few books are completely error free.

Amusingly I noticed that IA6 has a credit for an 'Editor'.

I don't believe them.

BYE

An editor of a book line doesn't necessarily do the proof read for errors, their duties are more far ranging over controlling the style and content of the range so it almost certainly won't be their duty in a major book line. Proof readers are often paid for that specific purpose, and you'd have several of them, it is a specific job and it is an 'exact science'. Though mistakes can occasionally be missed.

The publisher wanting the book puts together the material to print and sends it to a printer. The printer runs off exactly what they are sent and returns a proof copy. The publisher has staff to read this and request corrections, this goes back and fore until they have a proof copy they are happy with, they then sign a declaration to say so. The printers then print exactly what they are told.

Here's the rub, many publishers make a short cut and don't proof-read, they assume all is ok and sign off the proof copy without close examination. It's simply a time and money saving exercise and it's common from big publisher to small.

My wife worked in a printers and proof copies were signed off with spelling mistakes on the covers of books and magazines. Some of these were fortunately picked up by the staff at the printers and a call would be made to the publisher, but others weren't spotted until the material was printed.

Noisy_Marine wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Proof Reading isn't an exact science you know.

Something like this, assuming it is all spelt correctly would slip easily, as when proof reading, you are checking spelling, not content most of the time.

Proof reading is neither a science nor difficult. If people who just got the book can find these errors then why didn't GW notice? Stop making excuses for them.

Stop being so critical. It's a minor error that really won't matter in the end and you going off all half cocked about it is seriously lame.

Yeah, it's unreasonable to expect that GW can do basic things like check statlines and rules for consistency within individual product.

two_heads_talking wrote:Eye halve a spelling chequer, it came with my pea sea. It plainly marques four my revue Miss steaks eye kin knot sea ...

something like this will slip through Microsoft Word..

My Word picks up one spelling error and one gramattical error...

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yeah, it's unreasonable to expect that GW can do basic things like check statlines and rules for consistency within individual product.

Stop chanelling me DD! It's spooky.

BYE

Howard A Treesong wrote:Here's the rub, many publishers make a short cut and don't proof-read, they assume all is ok and sign off the proof copy without close examination. It's simply a time and money saving exercise and it's common from big publisher to small.

I assume that GW doesn't outsource their publishing... maybe their printing (I don't know how big Black Library is as a division), so the blame still lies with them. And from the perspective of the Imperial Armour books, I just find it difficult that they take 'short cuts'. Those books come out at a rate of 1 a year. There should be enough time to read through it and catch the mistakes. It doesn't take any of us that long to find them, even when we're not looking for them.

BYE