6th Edition Grammar **** Blitz

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I'm not sure we are off to a good start when the second sentence in the new book contains a significant grammatical error. For the record GW, "mankind" is singular, "their" is plural.

**** in the title refers to a four letter abreviation of the National Socialist German Workers Party btw.

[Thanatos_elNyx]

I can't remember the page but there is one sentence I spotted where they spell "lose" as "loose". :(

[Wolfshade]

While I agree mankind is singular, it is a collective noun and so their are those who would argue that using plurals with it is acceptable.
Alternatively, "their" can be used, rather more clunkly, for a singular with indeterminate gender. This gender neutral language is becoming somewhat more common then the more technically correct masculine singular.

[Diagnosis Ninja]

Too bee fare tho, they're languidge is breliant compard too you're averigde brit.

[Wolfshade]

Too bee fare tho, they're languidge is breliant compard too you're averigde brit.

The worrying thing is that you are being amusing and still is better written and more coherant then some comments I have read :eek:

[Wildeybeast]

Never mind grammar, who at GW can't even use a bloody spell checker? What they hell is 'rapis fire'? Even Word manages to pick that one up.

[BaileyBankai]

also page 131, what does canonly mean lol.

[Dalleron]

I know that GW is a model company 1st and foremost but when I pay 100$ for a rulebook, I would like to think the spelling and grammar would be checked. I also know better, and it doesn't detract from the function of the book, but the price dictates a certain level of professionalism in my mind. There are people whose job it is to do this, no? Maybe not at GW, but perhaps at BL they have the personnel.

[Wolfshade]

BL books are hardly perfect either!
It is very hard to proof read fiction books, non-fiction it is somewhat easier (or at least I find it to be that way).

[Diagnosis Ninja]

The worrying thing is that you are being amusing and still is better written and more coherant then some comments I have read :eek:
I could leave out more vowels next time? :P

I might not be able to spell every word, but damn me if I don't try.

[eldargal]

Honestly a handful of minor errors aren't enough to irritate me that much. As someone who once helped out at a magazine staffed by erudite, intelligent and highly literate I have a lot of sympathy for how hard it is to proofread to what a lot of armchair critics would consider a proper standard.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I like Rapis Fire, Last Weapons, and Marco Cannons!

[Wolfshade]

Honestly a handful of minor errors aren't enough to irritate me that much. As someone who once helped out at a magazine staffed by erudite, intelligent and highly literate I have a lot of sympathy for how hard it is to proofread to what a lot of armchair critics would consider a proper standard.

I totally agree, proof reading is very hard to do. I'm just waiting for the thread that reads:

damn man my roole book is totallly messed up its full of erroz and schitzles, i cant even red it propperly irregadless of how much it cost it shuld be betta

[The AKH]

I like Rapis Fire, Last Weapons, and Marco Cannons!

+1 to hit against Polo Armour?

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

+1 to hit against Polo Armour?

Hahahaahahaha!

[Wildeybeast]

I totally agree, proof reading is very hard to do. I'm just waiting for the thread that reads:

It's not that hard. Most publishing companies manage it. Pick up a quality newspaper and see how many mistakes are in there compared to your average WD. And that is a daily vs monthly comparison. Admittedly doing a book is harder as there is more to check, but you have longer to do it and you just take it in small sections. Checking a chapter in your book is no harder than prooofing your average dissertation. Using the spell checker on your computer makes the job quite a bit easier. The problem is that proper publishers of books, magazines and newspapers pay people to check these things. GW does not because they are either a) too cheap to do so or b) do not consider their publications worthy of such efforts. Either is an unacceptable reason in my view, but then I guess other people have differnt standards to me.

[eldargal]

Oh I don't know, I pick out a good half a dozen mistakes everytime I read the Telegraph or Times. Not to mention they have dozens and dozens of staff, WD is put together by a much smaller team.

[Wildeybeast]

I know it is, but when you are paying £4 an issue, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect it to be properly proof read. And when you are paying £45 for a book the very least I expect is for it to be properly edited. I know that they are minor thinsg and don't really detraxct from the overall enjoyment or quality, but the anal retentive in me says that if we let these standards slip now, who knows where we will end up. I'm generally pretty pro-GW, but I draw the line at simple typing errors.

[Herzlos]

Oh I don't know, I pick out a good half a dozen mistakes everytime I read the Telegraph or Times. Not to mention they have dozens and dozens of staff, WD is put together by a much smaller team.

There's also a lot less text in a WD issue.

I have some experience of publishing, and some industry standard tools are crap for spell-checking. One of the biggest pitfalls I've seen is re-reading something you've written, you tend to miss an awful lot of clangers. Most of the mistakes spotted so far should have been picked up by the proof reading (if they went sent to an external company/department questions should be asked) or editing (things that don't pass a spell check).

I'm always curious as to whether these mistakes will disappear in future prints, making these first editions more valuable to die-hard collectors :D, or whether they were deliberate mis-prints to try and identify the source of leaks.

[alshrive]

It's not that hard. Most publishing companies manage it. Pick up a quality newspaper and see how many mistakes are in there compared to your average WD. And that is a daily vs monthly comparison. Admittedly doing a book is harder as there is more to check, but you have longer to do it and you just take it in small sections. Checking a chapter in your book is no harder than prooofing your average dissertation. Using the spell checker on your computer makes the job quite a bit easier. The problem is that proper publishers of books, magazines and newspapers pay people to check these things. GW does not because they are either a) too cheap to do so or b) do not consider their publications worthy of such efforts. Either is an unacceptable reason in my view, but then I guess other people have differnt standards to me.

I hate to bring this up, but did you proof read your post?
I mean, comparatively speaking, the rulebook contains less mistakes per paragraph than your single post.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I hate to bring this up, but did you proof read your post?
I mean, comparatively speaking, the rulebook contains less mistakes per paragraph than your single post.

I felt the burn from all the way up here in Cheshire!

[Wolfshade]

Yes, the irony of people complaining when making the same mistakes is not lost, however, Wildeybeast is not a publisher, nor is his comments a service that we pay for.
While ironic there is a difference. I am sure that other members' comments are not always up to scratch.

[alshrive]

I was simply highlighting the irony of so many mistakes in a complaint about mistakes. on a completely different topic i have just had my mind blown! Europe is Zoidberg!

http://themetapicture.com/media/funny-map-of-Europe-Zoidberg.jpg

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Yeah but Wolfie, Wildeybeast ALWAYS makes snide remarks about us. :/

[Wolfshade]

I don't care/notice, too busy being awesome.

So tell me Alshrive, how have you had your mind blown away.
I also wasn't criticising you for your complaint/observation, just that we would expect different things from different sources. Sorry for any offense :(

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I suppose, I am always aware of what is said though. :p

Yes Aaron, blow our minds.

[alshrive]

changed it to an attachment

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

For Akatosh's sake, cannot see post. :/

I hate you work.

[alshrive]

i ahve changed it to an attachment on the previous post

[Wolfshade]

That is somehting special

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Holy cow.
"Need new continent? Why not Zoidberg?" (http://www.floatingpath.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Why-Not-Zoidberg-415x259.jpg)

[alshrive]

i am glad others find this as amazing as i did!

[Wildeybeast]

Yes, the irony of people complaining when making the same mistakes is not lost, however, Wildeybeast is not a publisher, nor is his comments a service that we pay for.
While ironic there is a difference. I am sure that other members' comments are not always up to scratch.

Exactly. I have better things to do with my life than proof read interent posts. I am not a publisher and people are not paying for for what I write. I'm surprised they bother to read it all. I ahve dsypraxia which makes typing somewhat more dificult than it should be and I'd be here all day if a i bothered to thoroughly check what I write. And since this forum doesn't feature a spell checker, I'm not going through it all myself.


I was simply highlighting the irony of so many mistakes in a complaint about mistakes. [/IMG]

It was in no way ironic. Hypocritical, quite possibl,, but certainly not ironic. It only would have been ironic if those mistakes had been deliberate.


Yeah but Wolfie, Wildeybeast ALWAYS makes snide remarks about us. :/

They aren't meant as snide :( I thought they were humours japes at your sometimes 'distracted' conversations.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Honestly a handful of minor errors aren't enough to irritate me that much. As someone who once helped out at a magazine staffed by erudite, intelligent and highly literate I have a lot of sympathy for how hard it is to proofread to what a lot of armchair critics would consider a proper standard.

I'm not exactly an armchair critic. I've published six books (one by Johns Hopkins University Press) and just finished the first draft of my seventh. In my professional judgement screwing up the plural and singular tense on the second sentence of a $75 book is a pretty big Ef-up no matter how you slice it. -This is not to mention the other mistakes fellow BOL'rs are pointing out.

Wildeybeast is right on the money on this issue.

[DarkLink]

And since this forum doesn't feature a spell checker, I'm not going through it all myself.


Google Chrome.

[eldargal]

Well, no offense intended, but your professional opinion is mistaken. It's a minor grammatical issue in a book about toy soldiers that is not published by a major printing house and is not being subjected to anywhere near the scrutiny that many other books are subjected to. It's just a complete non-issue.


I'm not exactly an armchair critic. I've published six books (one by Johns Hopkins University Press) and just finished the first draft of my seventh. In my professional judgement screwing up the plural and singular tense on the second sentence of a $75 book is a pretty big Ef-up no matter how you slice it. -This is not to mention the other mistakes fellow BOL'rs are pointing out.

Wildeybeast is right on the money on this issue.

[Wildeybeast]

Google Chrome.

I use Firefox. If I was really bothered I could copy and paste everything from Word (or indeed change my browser). I'm not. Thanks for the tip though.


Well, no offense intended, but your professional opinion is mistaken. It's a minor grammatical issue in a book about toy soldiers that is not published by a major printing house and is not being subjected to anywhere near the scrutiny that many other books are subjected to. It's just a complete non-issue.

The grammatical issue may be a small one, but there is no excuse for spelling mistakes when you have a spell checker so easily available. That's just laziness on the part of either the author or the printer and is unacceptable. And why should it not be held to the same standards of other books, especially when it costs the sort of price I would expect on a similar niche publication like an academic text book?

[eldargal]

The fact remains they are just small, stupid mistakes not some kind of 'big f**** up'. It really is just making mountains of molehills here.

I really don't think a book about toy soldiers need be held to the same standards of an academic text either.:p Regardless of price.

[Rapture]

The standard is simply a 'reasonable' standard. With an error in the second sentence, that standard would clearly not be met even if we were discussing a comic book.

Other errors like 'rapis fire' (which is impossible to miss) further show that there was no real effort to finish the book. Regardless of any counter-argument, a $75 book of any kind should be relatively free of even minor annoyances.

[eldargal]

Bollocks. A few typos and grammatical errors do not mean 'there was no real effort to finish this book'. It mrans a few errors were missed, that's all. Mountains out of molehills. I mean is it any wonder GW don't pay any attention when serious issues are brought up when peopel whine about irrelevencies like this.:rolleyes:

I've also noticed quite a few typos in DC comics, and no I haven't seen people nerdraging about that much either. Because it really doesn't matter at all. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but of all the things to complain about in relation to 6th edition a few minor grammatical errors and typos is really not high on the list. Do the rules suffer for it? No. Does it interfere with the meaning of the sentences in a significant fashion? No. Does it make certain rules ambiguous? No. Does it have any impact on the hobby at all? No.

[Necron2.0]

I agree with the consensus and the professionals - it IS a pretty egregious mistake. The fact that they couldn't find basic errors that any spellchecker would find, especially given how freaking long they had to work on it ... well, I'm an engineer - in a profession whose members are known for an inability to write more gooder - and I routinely do better with the proposals and technical documents I'm forced to write.

Still, GW isn't alone in this by any stretch of the imagination. I've noted a general breakdown in professionalism and quality in the gaming industry for the past 10 years or so. An example of this that has been burned into my memory is WotC's Star Wars "Saga Edition" RPG. Now that was crap-tacular. Not only were there obvious glaring typos on nearly every page of every book, but there were also run-on sentences, sentence fragments, strings of words that made no sense together, and in one case I found an editor's comment for changing the wording of a sentence that actually got published. That last one surprised me most of all, because I'd assumed until I saw it that there were no editors. Even if the wording had been perfect, everything in Saga smacked of having been written in 24 hours through an alcohol induced haze. It only took you a couple gaming sessions to realize nothing at all had ever been play tested, and with each new core book, the imbalance and absurdity just got worse and worse.

So yes - GW screwed up and it is fairly indicative of their lack of concern for quality and their customers. Sadly, however, that's par for the course to the industry at large these days.

What I find most ironic in this is that in the days prior to spell check, documents actual seem to have had fewer grammatical errors.

[eldargal]

Like it or not (and I don't) the approach the language in the Anglosphere is becoming increasingly more casual. Holding a book about scifi toy soldiers to the same standards you hold literature from an academic press is just idiotic as far as I'm concerned.

It's a book about toy soldiers making a fuss over a minor grammatical error here and there and a handful of typos really just seems symptomatic of a complete lack of perspective. Hell grammar hasn't even been taught properly in all but our most elite public schools (that's private schools for you 'mericans) since the 60s.

It just doesn't matter. Frankly I'm surprised, this is something I'd expect to see blown out of proportion on Warseer, not here.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Holding a book about scifi toy soldiers to the same standards you hold literature from an academic press is just idiotic as far as I'm concerned.

I don''t think any of us actually said we hold a game book to the same standard as an academic press. I simply mentioned that I'd had a book published with an academic press to establish my credentials so that I would not have to hear the "you're an idiot!" argument. It seems that effort may have failed.

I believe we may need to file this in the "agree to disagree" drawer.

[Wolfshade]

In my professional judgement screwing up the plural and singular tense on the second sentence of a $75 book is a pretty big Ef-up no matter how you slice it.
The thing is, it is not cut and dry, the language change over recent years has seen plural tenses being used in gender ambiguous situations as the technically (or historically) correct form is the masculine singular, but there are movements about to bring (gender obscure) plurals in, and are in common usage. So it isn't a clear cut "their" is wrong in that case, while I would agree with you, sometimes their looks and sounds better than his.

[Necron2.0]

It's a book about toy soldiers making a fuss over a minor grammatical error here and there and a handful of typos really just seems symptomatic of a complete lack of perspective.

Speaking for myself, the issue isn't that there are typos - not really. The problem is that the typos listed are REAL easy to catch, especially nowadays. The fact that they were not points to a general lack of care in the presentation of the material. That, in turn, leads to the questions, "What else did they miss? Is this a quality product or am I holding a smoldering turd that was kicked out the door with as little effort as possible in order to make money?"

Unfortunately, with a lot of game systems and companies (not just GW), it is the latter that holds true from that last question and not the former. This is one reason why D&D 4th ed was such an abysmal failure, why Pathfinder was such a success, and in general why a lot of gaming groups (in my experience at least) have been resurrecting game systems from the 80's and early 90's.


Hell grammar hasn't even been taught properly in all but our most elite public schools (that's private schools for you 'mericans) since the 60s.

That's one reason why my daughter is going to be hating life. She's going to private school and her mother's a former English teacher. Even though my daughter is only 4 years old, my wife doesn't let anything slip. She'll have my daughter repeat herself until she uses proper grammar, no matter how long that takes. :p

[Rapture]

Bollocks. A few typos and grammatical errors do not mean 'there was no real effort to finish this book'. It mrans a few errors were missed, that's all. Mountains out of molehills. I mean is it any wonder GW don't pay any attention when serious issues are brought up when peopel whine about irrelevencies like this.:rolleyes:

I've also noticed quite a few typos in DC comics, and no I haven't seen people nerdraging about that much either. Because it really doesn't matter at all. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but of all the things to complain about in relation to 6th edition a few minor grammatical errors and typos is really not high on the list. Do the rules suffer for it? No. Does it interfere with the meaning of the sentences in a significant fashion? No. Does it make certain rules ambiguous? No. Does it have any impact on the hobby at all? No.

Rules suffering? Impact? Who exactly are you convincing that these things do not exist? I don't recall claiming that they do. People are simply pointing out the lack of care that went into finishing the rule book. I don't know what your deal is, but you are either lost or over-excited for some reason. And how would people bringing up editing issues have any impact on GW paying attention to serious issues? :rolleyes:

Regarding the polishing of the book - there was no effort and claiming otherwise is ridiculous. Missing obvious errors is nothing other than obvious evidence of a lack of concern regarding such errors. A single proof-reader would have straightened out most of the things that were pointed out. They were missed simply because no one cared. Which would be fine, if they didn't charge a premium for the book.

[eldargal]

Rapis fire doesn't obfuscate the meaning of the rule. The grammatical error and the start doesn't impact the rules. The other typos and incredibly minor faults don't impact the rules. The book is pretty, well set out, and relatively few of errors. Going from a minor grammatical error on the first page to a handful of typos to shoddy product is just a complete over reaction.

I mean keep it in perspective, four hundred odd pages and we've seen one minor grammatical error and a half dozen typos. That does NOT equate to a shoddy product, and if you think so then you lack perspective.

Yes they are stupid, yes they should have been caught, yes we should expect better. But in no way can you then state that the book lacks polish. It's just stupid. This is like Warseer whining that White Dwarf has too many pictures.

[Wildeybeast]

I don''t think any of us actually said we hold a game book to the same standard as an academic press.

I did, and I see no reason why it should not be. Not in terms of actual content, but in terms of standards of spelling and grammar. If I pay the same price for the same type of product, I expect the same standards. Otherwise one of those products is ripping me off.


Rapis fire doesn't obfuscate the meaning of the rule. The grammatical error and the start doesn't impact the rules. The other typos and incredibly minor faults don't impact the rules. The book is pretty, well set out, and relatively few of errors. Going from a minor grammatical error on the first page to a handful of typos to shoddy product is just a complete over reaction.

I mean keep it in perspective, four hundred odd pages and we've seen one minor grammatical error and a half dozen typos. That does NOT equate to a shoddy product, and if you think so then you lack perspective.

Yes they are stupid, yes they should have been caught, yes we should expect better. But in no way can you then state that the book lacks polish. It's just stupid. This is like Warseer whining that White Dwarf has too many pictures.

The complaint is not that it confuses the rules, nor that the book overall is not well made (I think it's one of the best they have done in terms of appearance and clarity). But the fact that someone has not bothered to press the spell check button and that no one has checked the work properly is just plain lazy and is unacceptable in a product people pay a substantial amount of money for. We are not asking for unreasonable standards either, we expect 12 year olds at school to be able to operate the spell check function (and most can), so an educated adult who is writing a book should most definitely be able to do so. And the fact that there are several errors means this is not a one-off, but a sustained lack of care and/or effort. And that virtually every issue of WD and most of the BL books I've read also contains typos shows it is an endemic problem across GW, however small a problem it may be. If GW were publishing these online for a nominal contribution, then we would be getting out knickers in a knot over nothing, but when they expect me to pay £45 for a book it is not unreasonable to expect a certain amount of care and effort to have gone into that book. Nor is it unreasonable to expect people who are paid to do a job to do it properly, and if your job is writing rules, you not only have to be able to create a rules mechanic that functions properly, but also to be able to write properly.

[eldargal]

But it's the jump from 'handful of errors' (literally a handful, like five have been reported) to 'sustained lack of care' which I think is completely overblown. A handful of errors slipping through in what is, as you say, one of their best looking books yet really is a tremendously minor flaw. Extrapolating a culture of incompetence or disregard on GWs part on the basis of that is also a huge leap in logic which I just can't follow.

[Wildeybeast]

If the errors were all in the same section, it would suggest that just that particular document had not been checked propely. That they are spread out aross the book indicates that several sections have not been checked properly. And that the WD team and BL are also making these mistakes means it is a more widespread problem as several people across several departments are making these errors and no one is taking responsibility for picking them up. Making a mistake is an honest error which we all do. Several people making the same mistake across a company is carelessness and poor management. The only reason this mistake is not being addressed is that it does not impact on their profit and as such that indicates a lack of care for the product and the customers. If GW, as a corporte entity, did care, they would hire editors for the rulebooks and sub editors to check WD, but since there is no money to be made in such an endeavour they don't. I fail to see how that is huge leap.

[eldargal]

Because a handful of errors accross 450 odd pages doesn't constitute a complete failure of proofreading.

http://www.charlielyons.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/mountain-molehill.gif
;)

[Rapture]

Having egregious, obvious error means that it is lacking polish!

A scientific paper detailing how to cure cancer would be openly criticized if the author spelled their name wrong or referred to the disease as "cancor" in the second sentence. Editing is part of finishing any written product. If we were arguing that a coma would have made a sentence sound better it would be a different story, but that is not the case.


Because a handful of errors accross 450 odd pages doesn't constitute a complete failure of proofreading.
Having an error in the second sentence certainly does. The "mole hill" argument is irrelevant to this conversation. We are pointing out the mistakes and saying that they should have been corrected through a normal editing process for any published material. No one is pulling out their pitchfork - only pointing out errors.

[eldargal]

No, it means it isn't quite as polished as it should be, which is a completely different thing. The Warhammer 40,000 is not a scientific paper that is going to be subjected to rigorous peer review, it's a sodding rulebook for toy soldiers. 6 typos and a dubious grammatical error do not equate to a failure or proofreading and presentation, it equates to a few stupid errors slipping through the net. That is all.


Also, regarding the grammatical error. Plural pronouns are permissable aftter collective nouns if the members of the collective are not all engaged in precisely the same activity at the sam time.' It's' may have been preferable but I'm not convinced 'their' was completely innappropriate either.

You are not pointing out errors and saying they should have been fixed, that is a given. You are claiming that because a half dozen errors in a 450 page book were undetected it amounts to a complete failure on the part of GW.

See above re: mountains + molehills. Always relevent where molehills are being raised to mountain status.

[Rapture]

The book costs $75 - they either did not have an independent proof-reader or had it done by a chimp. That is what makes it a complete failure regarding proof-reading.

I don't recall suggesting that the Warhammer: 40,000 6th edition rulebook would be subject to peer review. That was simply an example of the fact that lack of care leads to honest criticism.

The community chooses to point out these errors. Why are you complaining/defending them? If the community has a negative reaction to poor editing the likely outcome is better editing. A company does a bad job, consumers point it out, they do a better job next time (in this case, with minimal additional effort). Sounds good?

[eldargal]

I'm not defending them, I'm asking people to try and keep some damned perspective. It is a handful of minor errors over 450 pages, it does not amount to a major failure, it is not symptomatic of incompetence ITS A FEW BLOODY TYPOS. That is all.

I have no problem with compiling a lsit of errors for lulz and/or to send into GW to correct them in future printings. What I object to is a few errors being transmogrified into systematic incompetence and contempt for the customer by GW. It is absurd. I mean we have one page in this thread for each reported typo already,it's just so silly.:rolleyes:

[Rapture]

Are you ok? I only ask because I typically regard you as a somewhat reasonable person, but this is worse than arguing with Buffo or Tynskel.

No one is claiming corporation-wide incompetence. No one is claiming that the rule don't function because of the obvious errors. We are simply pointing out that we noticed that the book was not properly proof-read.

We know that the problem is only, as some would put it, "A FEW BLOODY TYPOS." We simply have standards that require a nice once-over before publishing. Our perspective is fine. We are still buying the book - we just don't like seeing "rapis fire" when we read it.

Our contempt is for typos and errors - they are simply ugly and the world is simply a better place without them. Especially the ones that are impossible to miss. No one in their right mind would disagree with that.

[Wildeybeast]

Because a handful of errors accross 450 odd pages doesn't constitute a complete failure of proofreading.


No, but it does mean that several sections of the book have not been proof read properly, which means either the person/s proof reading it has not done their job properly or it has not been proof read at all. Either way it is unacceptable.

[eldargal]

Well, that I agree with, someone wasn't doing their job properly.

No, but it does mean that several sections of the book have not been proof read properly, which means either the person/s proof reading it has not done their job properly or it has not been proof read at all. Either way it is unacceptable.

Rapture, no I'm not ok, but don't worry about. Didn't mean to cause any offense or come accross as rude. Just cranky at present.

[DarkLink]

I can't tell you how may professionally published book I've read where I've caught one or two errors. I can't tell you how many college textbooks have incorrect answers in the back (which the publishers then use as an excuse to publish a new edition just to shuffle a few chapters around and rewrite the questions, while still charging an absurd amount of money for the new book, and you'd better hope your professor lets you use an old edition so that you can save literally hundreds of dollars per book by buying used). I'm not sure how a misspelled work like 'rapis' got through, but one or two grammatical errors, or words used incorrectly but spelled correctly, are not a big deal.

[alshrive]

erm just a quick question? when did this hobby become more about the grammar than the models?

[Psychosplodge]

BL books are hardly perfect either!
It is very hard to proof read fiction books, non-fiction it is somewhat easier (or at least I find it to be that way).

Some of the Black library books make me cringe...


I hate to bring this up, but did you proof read your post?
I mean, comparatively speaking, the rulebook contains less mistakes per paragraph than your single post.

I don't know about you, but personally, my spelling suffers when I'm typing because I learnt to write by hand, so that's how my brain works.
Back in the days when I had a pc and no internet, if I was typing something that HAD to be right, I'd write any words down on paper that didn't look right, because my hand "knew" how to write them...


Yeah but Wolfie, Wildeybeast ALWAYS makes snide remarks about us. :/


They aren't meant as snide :( I thought they were humours japes at your sometimes 'distracted' conversations.

They're not snide lol, he's just waiting for us to invite him to be the "Fourth horseman of the derailment"


I use Firefox. If I was really bothered I could copy and paste everything from Word (or indeed change my browser). I'm not. Thanks for the tip though.


Nah, you can add a dictionary to the spell check function for firefox in the redundantly named "British English"

[Wolfshade]

I think that there are two issues here:
* Do the rules still convey meaning without causing ambiguity brought about by imprecise grammar/spelling?

Not that I am aware of yet
* Should the mistakes exist?

No, fundamentally and given how much I have spent on this product, nor should they. However, I accept that there are errors in most printed works. While they shouldn't be there I am resigned to the fact that they do.
I would say that the first point is the most important, with the second be a subsidary concern, since I believe that the intent of most people would be getting the rule book to know and understand the rules and if the errors do not negatively affect that then it is ok, if a bit annoying.

[Wildeybeast]

I don't know about you, but personally, my spelling suffers when I'm typing because I learnt to write by hand, so that's how my brain works.
Back in the days when I had a pc and no internet, if I was typing something that HAD to be right, I'd write any words down on paper that didn't look right, because my hand "knew" how to write them...

I have a similar issue in that my handwriting is so quick that my brain works faster than my fingers while typing, so I get the right letters but in the wrong order or miss letters altogether. The dsypraxia doesn't help.





They're not snide lol, he's just waiting for us to invite him to be the "Fourth horseman of the derailment"
I'm not joining any gang where I'm fourth, it's first or nothing!




Nah, you can add a dictionary to the spell check function for firefox in the redundantly named "British English"

In the spirit of thread derailment, thanks for the tip! Though those squiggly red lines are really going to bug me now. Turns out Psychosplodge is not a real name. Who knew?

[Psychosplodge]

I'm not joining any gang where I'm fourth, it's first or nothing!

It's only fourth in the sense that so far there appears to three of us :D



In the spirit of thread derailment, thanks for the tip! Though those squiggly red lines are really going to bug me now. Turns out Psychosplodge is not a real name. Who knew?

Well it's not perfect, apparently neither is Wildeybeast, it doesn't recognise arse either...

[Wolfshade]

Well it's not perfect, apparently neither is Wildeybeast, it doesn't recognise arse either...
Does it recognise an arse?

[Psychosplodge]

Does it recognise an arse?
probably not, it doesn't do grammar at all...there be no green squiggles...

[Herzlos]

erm just a quick question? when did this hobby become more about the grammar than the models?

It's a hobby favored more by people who are likely to be pick up on and be vocal about quality defects, such as poor grammar/spelling in books. With that in mind, it seems bizarre for a company trying to present themselves as a premium wargaming company with a premium produce to to be less than premium in that respect. In the same way you'd expect WSJ readers to be more likely to be annoyed by poor publication/editing than tabloid readers.

[Wolfshade]

It is amusing how we have come to understand these programme features as epxectations of how information should conveyed!

[Wildeybeast]

It's only fourth in the sense that so far there appears to three of us :D

Hmm, that works for me. Like d'Artagnan, the newest member of the group, the swashbuckling upstart but true hero of the story and the one that gets all the girls. My already overinflated ego can handle that. ;)





Well it's not perfect, apparently neither is Wildeybeast, it doesn't recognise arse either...

I'm concerned that my name and arse are appearing in the same thought stream.....

[Psychosplodge]

Hmm, that works for me. Like d'Artagnan, the newest member of the group, the swashbuckling upstart but true hero of the story and the one that gets all the girls. My already overinflated ego can handle that. ;).

That's not quite the version I remembered but sure why not lol
:D






I'm concerned that my name and arse are appearing in the same thought stream.....

lmao that was poorly worded, it was the first proper word that I could remember it missing....