Missing "x" in new print...

[ReluctantHero]

Did anyone notice that the new print of the core rulebook is missing all the "x" signs from all multiplied formulas?

I imagine that occurred due to some automated format function. And something like that would be extremely easy to miss. I'm just curious if anyone else spotted that.

[AKAramis]

looks just fine in the pdf...

[ReluctantHero]

looks just fine in the pdf...

I'm looking at things like the freight lot formulas under the Freight heading on pag 160, the formula for fuel needed for a jump in the second paragraph under the heading of Fuel on page 107, the formula for the cost of a destroyed system under Repairs on page 143, and so on.

This is the version of the PDF featuring the new artwork.

[ReluctantHero]

Oh, it is also like that in my copy of the pocket rulebook.

[lastbesthope]

Oh, it is also like that in my copy of the pocket rulebook.

Mine too, and it and the newest printing of the big main book are based on the same file I believe.

Any chance of a fix Matt?

LBH

[ReluctantHero]

Oh, it is also like that in my copy of the pocket rulebook.

Mine too, and it and the newest printing of the big main book are based on the same file I believe.

Any chance of a fix Matt?

LBH

I just mark mine in with a pen as I see them. There are certainly worse errors that could exist.

Maybe we could help out by posting references to them as we find them.

[AKAramis]

I spot checked different pages....
107: missing.
143: missing
165: missing

111 has the x... so does at least one other page.

[ReluctantHero]

I did a search for "x" in the pdf and the only time it occurred by itself (in a formula) was on a couple charts. In text it was nowhere to be found (in a formula, at any rate).

[Gee4orce]

Same here, Pocket rulebook. Generally it's easy to spot where they are missing - but not always

A free copy of the PDF might make amends, I think.

[Stainless]

Now didn't we hear somewhere that Mongoose was turning over a new leaf and no more of these unprofessional typos would occur?

Seems like an old dog can't learn new tricks.

Very dissapointing (since I like MongTrav so much) and they're already loosing my business as I won't buy High Guard or Traders and Gunboats until I hear they are printed correctly.

[ReluctantHero]

That's a little harsh, I think. You can generally figure out where they're supposed to be as you're reading through the text so it isn't like it is game wrecking or anything. And so far I've only found maybe 4 locations where they were dropped from formulas.

As modern RPG editing goes this is small stuff...

[MongooseMatt]

Very dissapointing (since I like MongTrav so much) and they're already loosing my business as I won't buy High Guard or Traders and Gunboats until I hear they are printed correctly.

They are printed correctly.

[Garuda]

Very dissapointing (since I like MongTrav so much) and they're already loosing my business as I won't buy High Guard or Traders and Gunboats until I hear they are printed correctly.

They are printed correctly.

The fresh prints are, but my HG copy isn't. I still use the books without problem, but it is a little dissappointing that the first prints weren't proof read/checked before going on general sale.

That being said, I still think that Monggose Traveller is overall, an excellent product and I shall continue to buy.

[MongooseMatt]

The fresh prints are, but my HG copy isn't. I still use the books without problem, but it is a little dissappointing that the first prints weren't proof read/checked before going on general sale.

True as far as it goes - but we have offered to replace the book, plus give you another one for free.

Being fair, I think we made up for it

[Stainless]

Very dissapointing (since I like MongTrav so much) and they're already loosing my business as I won't buy High Guard or Traders and Gunboats until I hear they are printed correctly.

They are printed correctly.

That may be true, but the OP is about the Traveller core rule book. So far, correct me if I'm wrong, that has had the first printing, then an updated version of the PDF and then another update of the PDF with new art and STILL there are errors. Thus, I'm just a bit skeptical as to how long I should wait before High Guard, etc. are truly correct before I buy them

I know from personal professional experience just how hard it can be to iron out all typos, so I'm not dismissing the difficulty of the task. If it was me, I'd use a model where I get the print-ready copy and then give one chapter and one chapter only to staff/volunteers to go through with a fine-toothed, highly skeptical, comb. Then it needs a couple of people to look over the whole volume yet agian to check for consistency of rules, etc. Yes, a slow and therefore costly process and not guaranteed to be 100% accurate, but Mongoose's reputation in this area, as expressed regularly on numerous RPG fora, is still mud. I suspect squeeky cleanness will be the only way to get a clear reputation.

[MongooseMatt]

Yes, a slow and therefore costly process and not guaranteed to be 100% accurate,

This is exactly what we do - and you are right, 100% accuracy is not guaranteed. In fact, we have never guaranteed perfection. What we _do_ guarantee is satisfaction, and if a book does not meet someone's standards, we will replace or refund without quibble.

100% perfection in this field is not possible on 100% of books - you are holding us to a standard that _no_ other gaming publisher is held to. Every publisher produces (or should produce) errata, and I believe that with free books swaps and compensation for larger errors, we have gone far further than any other publisher I can think of to correct mistakes.

Put it another way, if companies like WotC (with, what, 150-odd people in their RPG department) and Games Workshop (with over 2,500 employees at last count) cannot produce books without (sometimes extensive) errata, I do not believe you should expect to see anything different in a publisher much, much smaller.

I think it is fair to say we achieve a good 98% on this score, and we always strive for that other 2%.

[ReluctantHero]

To be fair this specific error is a bit different. It's not like they would have seen it as an error existing in the original typing 'cause it was there the first time. I imagine it was some sort of automated formating that ripped the 'x' symbols out and it was just missed because nobody thought to look for the error. I mean, I know I certainly never would have thought to look for it. And the fact that they're simply not there means you're supposed to notice something not there as opposed to seeing a mispelled word.

So the difficulty of seeing something you're already not looking for due to the fact that you would have assumed it was still there from the previous print is increased by the fact that you'd be looking for something that isn't there if you're even looking for it in the first place but you're not because you already put it there the first time?

Um...I apologize for that messy paragraph.

[dorward]

I apologize for that messy paragraph.

It made perfect sense

[lastbesthope]

The irony is I picked up the pocket book to get an updated error fixed version of the text in the main book

Still, i think even I can figure out where the x goes, I mean I am a qualified rocket scientist after all.

LBH

[Roger Calver]

OK it is an error but by no way a major one.

Mongoose have gone out of their way to compensate and fix the problems that have happened.

Sorry IMHO a few missing X's is nothing to get upset about.