2E release date

Also so they can correct typos/mistakes in the PDF version ;)
That happened with VAS, the PDF had some typos corrected.
 
Jhary said:
For what is it good when the pdf version is then typo free and the printed version is full of typos?

As Mongoose can then use the updated pdfs to correct future print runs of the hard copy.

LBH
 
lastbesthope said:
Jhary said:
For what is it good when the pdf version is then typo free and the printed version is full of typos?

As Mongoose can then use the updated pdfs to correct future print runs of the hard copy.

LBH

That woud mean wait untill the PDf version is on sale before some one Shoud order the printed version? so you get an typo free printed edition.

@ LBH you miss understood me. What have i from buying a typo Printed version when a month later ´MGp has the proof readed version as PDF on sale.
 
It is good because you have a hardcopy, that you can carry around in your gaming case/bag, and not have to read on a computer screen, or print bits from when you want them, pretty much like any book.
 
Do the Proof Readers get paid? (for proof reading :)) Would it really be that hard to find a good proof reader? Heck, I'd do it for a free copy of the rulebook! :)

What's this talk of a Mothership? Is it the Drakh Mothership?

Cheers,

RayB
 
Unless the Proofreader is an active employee of Mongoose, then no, it will be done by playtesters, Matt, and maybe tier 2 playtesters, and apart from Matt, their is no pay as far as I am aware.
 
hiffano said:
Unless the Proofreader is an active employee of Mongoose, then no, it will be done by playtesters, Matt, and maybe tier 2 playtesters, and apart from Matt, their is no pay as far as I am aware.

Actually, we have quite a few proofreaders.
 
They aren't typos or mistakes, it's that funny English English.. At least that's what I tell my grammar-nazi wife. :twisted:

Nezeray
 
Hi Matt,

I'm not meaning to be mean (really I'm not!), but your proof readers weren't very good for Sky Full of Stars (mind you that is just an opinion, I doubt there is a quantifiable scale of competence :wink: ).

I 'really' understand how typos can slip in when you're in a rush or the document type is changed in some way, but surely good proof reading would cost very little in the grand scheme of things? It's just a curiosity, not an accusation.

(Sorry if this came over a little crazy sounding, I just hate typos in publications! Having my name put to Forge World's Imperial Armour 3, which is riddled with typos, leaves me bitterly ambivalent. :? :cry: :D )

Cheers,

RayB
 
RayB said:
I'm not meaning to be mean (really I'm not!), but your proof readers weren't very good for Sky Full of Stars (mind you that is just an opinion, I doubt there is a quantifiable scale of competence :wink: ).

The proof readers for SFoS were excellent, as they generally are. The problem, by and large, was a process used to transport tables to document after the proof reading had taken place, something we no longer do (principally _because_ of what happened with SFoS).
 
msprange said:
hiffano said:
Unless the Proofreader is an active employee of Mongoose, then no, it will be done by playtesters, Matt, and maybe tier 2 playtesters, and apart from Matt, their is no pay as far as I am aware.

Actually, we have quite a few proofreaders.

was mere guesswork and postulation.

My Runequest book was pretty much typo free, so there must be some somewhere :-)
 
hiffano said:
was mere guesswork and postulation.

My Runequest book was pretty much typo free, so there must be some somewhere :-)

Most of our books are - it is just you CTA chaps that have suffered in recent history :) However, we have also instituted new processes specifically for you. As an example of how they now work, check out Victory at Sea. I think we had something like just 3 errors in stat blocks in that book, and one of those was down to me not putting in Radar for the Fletcher in the original document. . .
 
msprange said:
hiffano said:
was mere guesswork and postulation.

My Runequest book was pretty much typo free, so there must be some somewhere :-)

Most of our books are - it is just you CTA chaps that have suffered in recent history :) However, we have also instituted new processes specifically for you. As an example of how they now work, check out Victory at Sea. I think we had something like just 3 errors in stat blocks in that book, and one of those was down to me not putting in Radar for the Fletcher in the original document. . .

It's good to hear. Personally, I never really even noticed the typo's in sfos, I was more interested in the ship changes and suchlike, but some people are sticklers.
 
I've worked in the newspaper industry and I know typos happen to slip through even the most vigilant copy editors. It is game balance that I am worried about, and as long as the typos do not radically alter the game, like giving a Minbari a hull and stealth of 6, then I say just make sure the balance is right and get me the book.

Typos-schmypos.
 
Tankdriver said:
It is game balance that I am worried about, and as long as the typos do not radically alter the game, like giving a Minbari a hull and stealth of 6, then I say just make sure the balance is right and get me the book.

It is worth pointing out that if you see a Minbari ship with Hull and Stealth 6 in the second edition, it won't be a typo :)
 
I hope you are kidding. Or that the new stealth rules make it easier to hit a stealth six.


Now get back to work and get us our books!

please. if it is not to much trouble.
 
msprange said:
Tankdriver said:
It is game balance that I am worried about, and as long as the typos do not radically alter the game, like giving a Minbari a hull and stealth of 6, then I say just make sure the balance is right and get me the book.

It is worth pointing out that if you see a Minbari ship with Hull and Stealth 6 in the second edition, it won't be a typo :)

if i see a Minbari ship with hull 6 and stealth 6, I'm introducing it to mr Lump hammer!
 
Back
Top