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.

However, I think that hiring an editor is actually kind of a waste. I am a big proponent of Linus's Law, Codex rules should be released publicly as a beta and allow for crowdsourced proofreading.

They should do this but if they release rules like that they wouldn't sell as many books so it will never happen.

The Salt Mine wrote:

However, I think that hiring an editor is actually kind of a waste. I am a big proponent of Linus's Law, Codex rules should be released publicly as a beta and allow for crowdsourced proofreading.

They should do this but if they release rules like that they wouldn't sell as many books so it will never happen.

Sure they can.

Art+Fluff is a big draw.

They can intentionally tweak a few points up or down after feedback so the beta codex isn't valid anymore.

Of course, the most consumer friendly thing to do is to just provide a rules only pdf for free and let the codex be collectors items/artbooks, especially since every single codex they have released in 8th or 9th has been riddled with errors and required errata.

The Salt Mine wrote:
They should do this but if they release rules like that they wouldn't sell as many books so it will never happen.

Why would they not sell as many books? The beta releases would be basic, sans artwork, and obviously the full release, when it eventually comes out, would be different to the beta release. People wouldn't be holding onto their free betas when the complete finished books are on sale.

I think you both are over estimating the amount of people that buy the books for a collection standpoint.

Who says anything about collection standpoint?

People will buy the books they need. I don't see how doing a public beta would change that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who says anything about collection standpoint?

People will buy the books they need. I don't see how doing a public beta would change that.

That is what I am getting at. If the rules are available for a public beta then people wont have to buy the books for the rules. They will already have access to the rules for free because of the testing.

The Salt Mine wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who says anything about collection standpoint?

People will buy the books they need. I don't see how doing a public beta would change that.

That is what I am getting at. If the rules are available for a public beta then people wont have to buy the books for the rules. They will already have access to the rules for free because of the testing.

I think for a decent number of people not buying a codex means they just buy another box of intercessors instead.

I also think the jobs website is less of a "we're adding these new positions we've never had before!!" and more of an attempt to expand their hiring pool, more in line with how a global company doing $270 million in sales normally operates.

The Salt Mine wrote:
That is what I am getting at. If the rules are available for a public beta then people wont have to buy the books for the rules. They will already have access to the rules for free because of the testing.

They'll have out of date rules.

The Salt Mine wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who says anything about collection standpoint?

People will buy the books they need. I don't see how doing a public beta would change that.

That is what I am getting at. If the rules are available for a public beta then people wont have to buy the books for the rules. They will already have access to the rules for free because of the testing.

people who don't want to buy the Codex and just want rules to play with don't buy the books now either
expecting to sell books because people will just use the Beta rules and mark the changes on the pdf assumes that everyone who plays 40k now is buying the books

 kodos wrote:

The Salt Mine wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who says anything about collection standpoint?

People will buy the books they need. I don't see how doing a public beta would change that.

That is what I am getting at. If the rules are available for a public beta then people wont have to buy the books for the rules. They will already have access to the rules for free because of the testing.

people who don't want to buy the Codex and just want rules to play with don't buy the books now either
expecting to sell books because people will just use the Beta rules and mark the changes on the pdf assumes that everyone who plays 40k now is buying the books

So they aren't losing anything since those people wouldn't buy the codexes anyway.

It looks like an overall push to get new projects started - they're hiring for other positions around the same time (designers, painter, photographer) so there could be an internal re-shuffle on top of new projects so they need to plug the gaps.

However, I think that hiring an editor is actually kind of a waste. I am a big proponent of Linus's Law, Codex rules should be released publicly as a beta and allow for crowdsourced proofreading.

Good luck with that. A public beta where everyone just sends in their notes? You're going to end up with more problems, not less. People often think crowdsourcing just automatically makes things like this easier - after all, how could it not right? Except that, in the 1000 responses a day, only an incredibly small percentage will actually be of any use. Many will be incorrect at best, and another percentage will actually make things worse. So you still need and editor, only now, instead of just outright editing, they have to sift through all of this to make sure the right responses get acted upon. You're better off using that editor's time to have them perform their job like the professional they are and just do a good job of editing. It would also help if they followed industry best practices for publishing and content creation but that's another thread entirely.

Editing isn't like play testing where it can be significantly improved by sending it out to the masses. Plus, really - GW ignores the play testers half the time anyway. lol

GW needs editors/technical writers that are familiar with the games they're evaluating for.
It's all well and good making sure the books make linguistic sense, but if they can't tell whether or not the rule or statline makes sense within the context of the game, they'll do little more than polish the rot.

GW needs editors/technical writers that are familiar with the games they're evaluating for.
It's all well and good making sure the books make linguistic sense, but if they can't tell whether or not the rule or statline makes sense within the context of the game, they'll do little more than polish the rot.

Exactly. There's also the fact that, especially in a new edition, there may be things in a codex that don't make sense until some of the other codexes are out. An editor on the inside knows that. The people who have never edited a thing in their lives but are participating in the public beta do not. Huge waste of time imo.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Of course, the most consumer friendly thing to do is to just provide a rules only pdf for free and let the codex be collectors items/artbooks, especially since every single codex they have released in 8th or 9th has been riddled with errors and required errata.

Serious question, BCB - what was the last wargaming book that you're aware of that was released, and then never received errata or an FAQ?

 Dysartes wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Of course, the most consumer friendly thing to do is to just provide a rules only pdf for free and let the codex be collectors items/artbooks, especially since every single codex they have released in 8th or 9th has been riddled with errors and required errata.

Serious question, BCB - what was the last wargaming book that you're aware of that was released, and then never received errata or an FAQ?

The real question you should be asking is what quantity of errors or completely bad interactions did those 40k rules have compared to other rulesets.

Tycho wrote:

However, I think that hiring an editor is actually kind of a waste. I am a big proponent of Linus's Law, Codex rules should be released publicly as a beta and allow for crowdsourced proofreading.

Good luck with that. A public beta where everyone just sends in their notes? You're going to end up with more problems, not less. People often think crowdsourcing just automatically makes things like this easier - after all, how could it not right? Except that, in the 1000 responses a day, only an incredibly small percentage will actually be of any use. Many will be incorrect at best, and another percentage will actually make things worse. So you still need and editor, only now, instead of just outright editing, they have to sift through all of this to make sure the right responses get acted upon. You're better off using that editor's time to have them perform their job like the professional they are and just do a good job of editing. It would also help if they followed industry best practices for publishing and content creation but that's another thread entirely.

Editing isn't like play testing where it can be significantly improved by sending it out to the masses. Plus, really - GW ignores the play testers half the time anyway. lol

GW could do it through forums - rather than have everyone and their dog contacting them directly, have it so that each major forum collates their users' feedback and presents it in a very specific format.

 Dysartes wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Of course, the most consumer friendly thing to do is to just provide a rules only pdf for free and let the codex be collectors items/artbooks, especially since every single codex they have released in 8th or 9th has been riddled with errors and required errata.

Serious question, BCB - what was the last wargaming book that you're aware of that was released, and then never received errata or an FAQ?

Warhammer 40k: 6th edition

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They'll have out of date rules.

This. You just add some last minute units, and change some rules. Or add some core rules change that wasn't tested and the old rules no longer work the way they did. Plus if they can force people to paint their armies and put scenic bases on them or play with a 10VP handicap, they can do the same for books.

 Dysartes wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Of course, the most consumer friendly thing to do is to just provide a rules only pdf for free and let the codex be collectors items/artbooks, especially since every single codex they have released in 8th or 9th has been riddled with errors and required errata.

Serious question, BCB - what was the last wargaming book that you're aware of that was released, and then never received errata or an FAQ?

It's not the fact they have errors. It's the fact they have so MANY errors. Like, why bother buying the 9th edition rulebook when in less than a week it's already worthless with the amount of erratas and extra "rare rules" interactions added to it?

The entire concept of printed rulebooks is ludicrous in 2020. Sure they were necessary in the 1980s and 1990s, but not any more. They exist solely for the purposes of greed, milking another £100 or so from each player every few years, because selling 50p of plastic for £50 wasn't profitable enough?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
GW needs editors/technical writers that are familiar with the games they're evaluating for.
It's all well and good making sure the books make linguistic sense, but if they can't tell whether or not the rule or statline makes sense within the context of the game, they'll do little more than polish the rot.

Yup. Stop hiring humanities majors.

If I was allowed to work in the EU I would apply.

Hecaton wrote:
Yup. Stop hiring humanities majors.

If I was allowed to work in the EU I would apply.

Why aren't you? I have lots of American and Canadian colleagues who now live here.

GW could do it through forums - rather than have everyone and their dog contacting them directly, have it so that each major forum collates their users' feedback and presents it in a very specific format.

Which then still requires an editor to sift through what will largely be a giant pile of garbage.

Asking play testers to try out "XYZ" unit rules in "abc" situations and deliver feedback on it is one thing - crowdsourcing a book edit? That's something else entirely. Especially for something like 40k ...

But it could pick up big things. You would, I assume, still do in house and outside rules testing by professionals. And if their data would over lap, with what happened to the population as a whole it would be an important sign. Same if something different would happen. If the test team, made mostly out of tournament players, tells you an army is fine, but people in the wild are either struggling to play with it, outside of one specific tournament list, or worse get beaten over and over again, then maybe the DT should change something, unless their goal is to produce an army ment only for high end tournament players.

But it could pick up big things. You would, I assume, still do in house and outside rules testing by professionals. And if their data would over lap, with what happened to the population as a whole it would be an important sign. Same if something different would happen. If the test team, made mostly out of tournament players, tells you an army is fine, but people in the wild are either struggling to play with it, outside of one specific tournament list, or worse get beaten over and over again, then maybe the DT should change something, unless their goal is to produce an army ment only for high end tournament players.

I think you misunderstand me. Play testing rules publicly = good. Asking for a crowdsourced edit of the rules = dumpster fire on steroids.

I am all for beta testing the rules themselves. After all, that's largely what 8th ed was. I am saying to actually ask for editing that way is not a path to success here.

 Jidmah wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Yup. Stop hiring humanities majors.

If I was allowed to work in the EU I would apply.

Why aren't you? I have lots of American and Canadian colleagues who now live here.

I don't have a visa set up. "Allowed to work" is different from "could work if I was sponsored."

From looking at the ad, I see that GW doesn’t use the Oxford comma. That heresy is far too vile to let stand!

 Dirtbag wrote:
From looking at the ad, I see that GW doesn’t use the Oxford comma. That heresy is far too vile to let stand!

It's clear why they need an editor!

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Dirtbag wrote:
From looking at the ad, I see that GW doesn’t use the Oxford comma. That heresy is far too vile to let stand!

It's clear why they need an editor!

If you find that decisive, it's about the translated quality in general.

Can a mod please move this to the made up rumours thread in general discussions.........