I just couldn't take it anymore. I bought the Dark Vengeance release issue, and I'm glad I did, even though most of the content was crap. the blood crusher issue was terrible. The new features are like the bare minimum of effort, and this last issue was just the straw that broke the camel's back. I had to write the editor.

As a longtime fan of White Dwarf is was a bit annoyed to see the painting guide for The Hobbit figures in White Dwarf, as well as the lack of improvements to the magazine under the new White Dwarf team.

I just picked up a copy of the latest White Dwarf today, when I saw your painting guide for painting the figures from The Hobbit starter set. It provides a few token paint chips and says, and I quote:

"It isn't a comprehensive list of paints, but it's certainly enough to get you started."

Clearly I thought I was picking up a well-written hobby magazine with useful information in it. Obviously I was mistaken. How silly of me to expect an in-depth painting guide in the hobby magazine I just paid TEN DOLLARS for. No, I much prefer a few token paint chips and feth-all for painting advice.

Even worse, the painting information for the goblins is flat-out wrong, as it shows the goblins with an Reikland Fleshshade (brown) shading, rather than the purple shading the official studio figures have.

Bad show Jes, bad show.

I expect we'll actually get a full painting guide next month? Or any painting guide at all? The content provided in Paint Splatter is a far cry from the in-depth coverage Inquisitor figures received, back in the day. Although this was from before your time at the mag, now that I think about it, we also never got any painting guides for Grôblog, King of the Deeps, or Ashrak the Spiderkin either.

I thought White Dwarf was supposed to get better with the new staff? The new features seem to be largely comprised of pictures of already-painted figures from office staff and the internet, and some waffling from The Rivals and a token Battle Report. Blanchitsu is a welcome addition to the magazine though.

Your rival No Quarter magazine certainly never seems to be short on in-depth painting and hobby articles, and is light on the "We took a picture of it" photo-articles.

In the meantime, you may want to flip through White Dwarf back issues from when Lord of the Rings was first released, they contain much more in-depth painting guides, covering every portion of the model and proving paint color information for each. You could do worse, for this supposedly new-and-improved White Dwarf.


I've got WD's going back to the 90s (in issue number, not year) and I think this will be the last issue I buy. WD has been so terrible for so long and the new WD team hasn't improved anything. I'm flipping through the store copy from here on out

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

Let us know if you get any kind of reply.

Was it just me or was the article on the two gamers trash talking their Nobs and Space Wolves units to one another in last months magazine and this months? Thats something that really annoyed me when I opened up the mag after paying and I think GW might have some explaining to do there aswell or had I missed something? (by the way, the article was word for word, page for page as I recall when I compared them.)

Good idea with the letter, but there might have been too much sarcasm, or atleast thats what came across to me.

Unfortunately, as soon as you swore in that letter, it gave them an excuse to bin it. If you want them to take you seriously, at least act like an adult. There was no need for that at all.

A letter of cursing sarcasm. I'm sure you'll get an immediate response and things will instantly change for the better.

Good Luck.

The painting guide is ideal for newbies and those just getting on the hobbit bandwagon, which is GW's market now.

I stopped buying WD 10 or so years ago when it became obvious who GW's target had become.

I've always wanted to know, since most everyone agree that White Dwarf "has become terrible", when exactly was that "Golden era" when it was good? Because seriously I've read complaints of WD sucking "these days" since at least 1988.

Good idea and all, but the swearing is not going to help your cause at all. I, like a a lot of Dakkaites, stopped buying WD a looooong time ago. I just flick through every copy at my local news agents or borrow my lil bro's copy.

If you really wanted a change, you maybe should have stopped buying WD a few years back. Kudos for sticking with it and all, I bought my first copy in 1993, and have watched it go downhill slowly since around 2000. Shame, but there you go....

As an aside, this is the first ever copy I bought...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:
I've always wanted to know, since most everyone agree that White Dwarf "has become terrible", when exactly was that "Golden era" when it was good? Because seriously I've read complaints of WD sucking "these days" since at least 1988.

It was a great source of inspiration and had some genuinely talented writers back in the early to late 90's. People like Andy Chambers, Ian Pickstock, Gav Thorpe and Rick Priestley all made the magazine a great read. They came across in their writing as people who really loved the hobby and the company that employed them. Thats what made it a great magazine....

That's the first one I ever bought too!

@OP : Also worth mentioning that you had the US issue if you're writing an email to the UK - the UK and US issues often have different content.

 chris_valera wrote:
Screw White Dwarf reviews, I just wrote a complaint to White Dwarf Editor Jes Bickham

Pfft! Hater.

If you don't like it just stop playing.

Good to know that I am still not losing out on anything after I stopped buying WD (two years ago?).

I wrote a similar letter of complaint just before the "new and improved" editions and then stopped buying the magazine altogether.

It's not the editors fault, he's being told to put out this bland soulless crap.

To be fair I doubt the editor gets called into a room and told "You must put out bland crap!"

Anyway, WD being bad (or still bad as the case may be) isn't the worst part. It's the people who were sucked in by the flashy new paper and big photos saying the 'new' WD is 'better' that I find disturbing. It's a little too "sheep like" for me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
To be fair I doubt the editor gets called into a room and told "You must put out bland crap!"

Lol, maybe not, but I suspect he is given some direction over content (or lack thereof) i.e. "Don't put any more detailed painting guides in. We want people to buy the painting guide book and pay for ipad painting guide downloads."

I agree that more detailed painting guides (as well as some comprehensive terrain building articles) would make the magazine better, but - as has already been mentioned - there is a certain target market that GW have been directing their products at for many a year now.

WD is essentially a monthly catalogue of GW's products, with pretty pictures to entice you to purchase their latest offerings. It offers some articles/battle reports beyond this, but that's about it. Blanchitsu for me is certainly a welcome addition, however.

I - like many before me - would love to see more modelling/painting/tactics articles. Come on WD team!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
To be fair I doubt the editor gets called into a room and told "You must put out bland crap!"

Anyway, WD being bad (or still bad as the case may be) isn't the worst part. It's the people who were sucked in by the flashy new paper and big photos saying the 'new' WD is 'better' that I find disturbing. It's a little too "sheep like" for me.

I do agree with this, the biggest problem that I can see with the 'new look' WD is that it's become an even bigger catalogue of "NEW, SHINY WANT!" than it's ever been.. And that makes me sad
The lack of actual articles is extremely telling, it just smacks of journalistic lazyness to me. I used to read, that's READ, a copy of WD over a nice long cup of tea or three. The chances of me doing that now is almost zero....Damn shame.

 Flashman wrote:


It's not the editors fault, he's being told to put out this bland soulless crap.

Yes right. I've been reading through the latest edition also. Absolutely, absolutely terrible. It's just so awful on so many levels.

I've thought about writing a break-down and analysis of each component of the mag, specifying why it is so appalling. But, ultimately I know it will fall on deaf ears, and it's not going to do anything at all to change the kind of business culture that this attempt at journalism springs from.

Loads of pertinent points, I agree with all of them... But honestly..

Mate, I fething love swearing, but sarcasm and swearing in a letter to an editor?

If he doesn't reply, you lot will crucify him, but have some integrity and be honest, would you send a well thought out reply to that?

If some fether sends me a letter filled with cutting sarcasm and swear words, then he's basically getting fethed off.

And really, can you blame him?

I'd suggest rejigging the wording, cutting the insults and then resending it.

Agree completely, a polite and well thought out approach will usually get you much further and at least your points considered. Although I think in this case the complaints will just be ignored/not understood.

Therefore, why not, you may as well just go the whole 9-yards and send a photo-copy of your arse, with the note 'just returning the compliment'.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
The painting guide is ideal for newbies and those just getting on the hobbit bandwagon, which is GW's market now.

Except it's useless for newbies too. It's just a photo of the figure and an incomplete list of some of the colours used. Nothing that can't be worked out from a glance at the box.

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
To be fair I doubt the editor gets called into a room and told "You must put out bland crap!"

Anyway, WD being bad (or still bad as the case may be) isn't the worst part. It's the people who were sucked in by the flashy new paper and big photos saying the 'new' WD is 'better' that I find disturbing. It's a little too "sheep like" for me.

I do agree with this, the biggest problem that I can see with the 'new look' WD is that it's become an even bigger catalogue of "NEW, SHINY WANT!" than it's ever been.. And that makes me sad
The lack of actual articles is extremely telling, it just smacks of journalistic lazyness to me. I used to read, that's READ, a copy of WD over a nice long cup of tea or three. The chances of me doing that now is almost zero....Damn shame.

No journalists have ever been hurt in the production of WD.

Hence no exposes of Priestly and Chambers Cocaine addictions. No 'Kirby gaks in each batch of molten finecast' shocks.

Before GW sold walls with skulls on™ It was a hobby mag, there was some relevant content. Now GW is about kids, new entrants and shifting everything with skulls on, the content reflects this.

 Pacific wrote:

Therefore, why not, you may as well just go the whole 9-yards and send a photo-copy of your arse, with the note 'just returning the compliment'.

I may just do that. I'll title it "Your Christmas pressed ham."

Herzlos wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
The painting guide is ideal for newbies and those just getting on the hobbit bandwagon, which is GW's market now.

Except it's useless for newbies too. It's just a photo of the figure and an incomplete list of some of the colours used. Nothing that can't be worked out from a glance at the box.

Shh, the noobs will become aware.

Incidentally, can someone send me Jes' email, I've been meaning to point out what an insult the magazine has become, and mine has long since been binned.

Herzlos wrote:
Incidentally, can someone send me Jes' email, I've been meaning to point out what an insult the magazine has become, and mine has long since been binned.

I think this is it dontcare@games-workshop.com

You have some good points, but your presentation is pretty bad.

You want to go back, and take your notch down a bit on this one, or "File 13" is the only thing that is going to get this one's attention.

A well thought out complaint letter, along with you sending back the White Dwarf would have done better for you.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Before GW sold walls with skulls on™ It was a hobby mag, there was some relevant content.

Oh, this is the quote of the week, if not month! You, Sir, made my day!

doesnt surprise me.

i watched their how to paint citadel minis DVD and man it was bad.

they do a whole section on "clip models from the sprue". and another on "remove mold lines with the citadel mold line remover"

they talk slow as if the viewer is a total idiot. it's directed towards ten yearolds.

if you want indepth follow the top guys that paint for GD and high level commission-check their websites for tutorials. but maybe that will be too indepth when you see that they glaze a small surface on the mini with 8 different colours lol.

or many of the youtube channels about mini painting are much better.

Someone had to tell 'em!

I really think they have ruint a perfectly good magazine, like I used to get excited at the thought of looking through my new WD. Now it's just: "What's this crap? Did I really just buy this?"

 Mr. Burning wrote:
The painting guide is ideal for newbies and those just getting on the hobbit bandwagon, which is GW's market now.

I stopped buying WD 10 or so years ago when it became obvious who GW's target had become.

GW are just about completely neglecting long time players now, only really caring for newer players. The shops also seem to have also lost the special... "thing" that made them who they were, now.... they are merely a Carphone Warehouse who sell miniatures :(

 mattyrm wrote:
I'd suggest rejigging the wording, cutting the insults and then resending it.

And if mattyrm's telling you to cut the insults, then you know you need to!

There's also these http://pics.lockerz.com/s/266716374

One looks like an up armoured Satyr of some description and the other some sort of spiky light Troll warbeast.

After my own review which featured on these pages a few weeks ago, I decided to write a constructive criticism email about the re-boot of white dwarf. Nobody will be in the least surprised I never got a reply from GW/white dwarf editor, and this was an email that did not contain sarcasm or swearing, just a clear and concise letter of complaint like in a newspaper.

That letter is destined to become hamster bedding.

I think it has been well established that GW is in the business now of selling plastic (and not so great resin). What sells more than bright pretty macro pictures? The "hobby" side of things, and the "game" side of things is certainly a secondary thought to them. If "you" look through a White Dwarf and go "that is the most awesome model I have ever seen!!!!!! I NEED one" than it has done its job perfectly.

If they reduced the priced by 50%, it may be worth my time.

Coming up next week - why bears gak in the woods.

White Dwarf has been useless for a long while now. Get over it.

When they started writing comments in the magazine as though though a fictional dwarf were making them, I gave up on the thing.

 JudgeShamgar wrote:
If "you" look through a White Dwarf and go "that is the most awesome model I have ever seen!!!!!! I NEED one" than it has done its job perfectly.

No, I think you need more than that.

Part of the reason, I've got into Flames of War recently has been the high level of hobby support on the website, particularly with regards to Open Fire box set. e.g. instruction videos on how to play the game, put the models together (organising the right minis onto the bases is quite complex) and paint them. Now ok, this is a different medium, but it represents the kind of background support to the hobby I expect.

Pretty pictures of a shiny new model aren't enough for me. I want to see how it fits together, the best way to paint it, how it integrates into my army etc etc. GW have stopped this altogether and therefore, I don't really get a feel for their products anymore.

I use the word "soulless" a lot when I talk about GW these days and this is kind of what I'm getting at.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that while I enjoyed White Dwarf's as a kid, it had nothing to do with the hobby section. How to highlight the scales on an elven lord's dragon is not much use to someone who can't paint a space marine out of the starter box, and that ineptitude put me off for years.

 Flashman wrote:

 JudgeShamgar wrote:
If "you" look through a White Dwarf and go "that is the most awesome model I have ever seen!!!!!! I NEED one" than it has done its job perfectly.

No, I think you need more than that.

Part of the reason, I've got into Flames of War recently has been the high level of hobby support on the website, particularly with regards to Open Fire box set. e.g. instruction videos on how to play the game, put the models together (organising the right minis onto the bases is quite complex) and paint them. Now ok, this is a different medium, but it represents the kind of background support to the hobby I expect.

Pretty pictures of a shiny new model aren't enough for me. I want to see how it fits together, the best way to paint it, how it integrates into my army etc etc. GW have stopped this altogether and therefore, I don't really get a feel for their products anymore.

I use the word "soulless" a lot when I talk about GW these days and this is kind of what I'm getting at.

Just an FYI: I put the word you in quotation marks to indicate that the following statement made might not apply to everyone. I too would prefer to have more of a modeling showcase than WD has had in a long time.

 Flashman wrote:
Part of the reason, I've got into Flames of War recently has been the high level of hobby support on the website, particularly with regards to Open Fire box set. e.g. instruction videos on how to play the game, put the models together (organising the right minis onto the bases is quite complex) and paint them. Now ok, this is a different medium, but it represents the kind of background support to the hobby I expect.

Oh, trust me, Battlefront can be pretty arrogant pricks in the worst sense of it - one of the reasons might be since they now host a lot of former GW employees who carried that "THE HOBBY" attitude to FoW.

CainTheHunter wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
Part of the reason, I've got into Flames of War recently has been the high level of hobby support on the website, particularly with regards to Open Fire box set. e.g. instruction videos on how to play the game, put the models together (organising the right minis onto the bases is quite complex) and paint them. Now ok, this is a different medium, but it represents the kind of background support to the hobby I expect.

Oh, trust me, Battlefront can be pretty arrogant pricks in the worst sense of it - one of the reasons might be since they now host a lot of former GW employees who carried that "THE HOBBY" attitude to FoW.

This.

Wait a bit for the new car smell to wear off of FOW. You'll see the ugly white underbelly soon enough.

FOW has a good thing going, but they also, along with GW, have a bad habit of believing thier own gak to the point that no other game exists.

 Grot 6 wrote:

CainTheHunter wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
Part of the reason, I've got into Flames of War recently has been the high level of hobby support on the website, particularly with regards to Open Fire box set. e.g. instruction videos on how to play the game, put the models together (organising the right minis onto the bases is quite complex) and paint them. Now ok, this is a different medium, but it represents the kind of background support to the hobby I expect.

Oh, trust me, Battlefront can be pretty arrogant pricks in the worst sense of it - one of the reasons might be since they now host a lot of former GW employees who carried that "THE HOBBY" attitude to FoW.

This.

Wait a bit for the new car smell to wear off of FOW. You'll see the ugly white underbelly soon enough.

FOW has a good thing going, but they also, along with GW, have a bad habit of believing thier own gak to the point that no other game exists.

Lol, good to know

 Grot 6 wrote:

This.

Wait a bit for the new car smell to wear off of FOW. You'll see the ugly white underbelly soon enough.

FOW has a good thing going, but they also, along with GW, have a bad habit of believing thier own gak to the point that no other game exists.

Since they actively support other games in their magazine and even allow miniatures from other manufacturers in their official tournaments (as long as they don't produce the mini themselves as well), don't you think that you are exaggerating a bit?

Don't get me wrong, BFs "lets repackage all our books into a new one and charge you an arm and a leg for it" shenanigans have made me a little bit mad as well, but they are nowhere near the soulless vampires that GW are.

For those of you here who have never picked up a copy of No Quarter, I highly suggest picking one up now.

Gw's white dwarf magazine was what drew me into this hobby 2 years ago around the release of island of blood boxed set. The white dwarf I picked up had an extensive fluff section narrating the battle report they were playing and was extremely easy to follow. The following issue I think had a masterclass on painting one of the elf characters. I was hooked.

I subscribed to the magazine for a year and it all went well for the following few months, with the masterclass on the dark eldar being one of the best issues ever. I suppose the decay for me started around 2011 where none of the issues had any good content in it whatsoever save the dreadfleet issue.
Battle reports became messy and poorly written. There was no fluff articles anymore and the painting articles became utter gak.

Why oh why did every single 2011 heavy metal show case article have zero painting advice in it??? All they did was say 'i painted this in warm tones' or 'the colours i used bring contrast'. A few simple words like i used this color or dry brushed with that would have been so much more helpful.

Obviously I wasn't happy, and I never renewed the subscription after deciding i would just read it at the FLGS. As it so happens, No quarter was right next to white dwarf and being curious I flipped through.
Surprise surprise, it was exactly like the white dwarf that got me into warhammer. Painting articles that were super detailed and taught you advanced techniques like say....simulating the look of malachite on war beast armour. All the stuff you expect to see in a copy of white dwarf but don't get.

With the GW embargo still raw back then and the cheap buy in pricing of warmahordes it wasn't hard to find reasons to quit fail-hammer and start up warmachine/hordes after that.

Just last month I decided to give the new white dwarf another look and borrowed the dark vengeance issue. I wasn't surprised to see that it was basically the exact same magazine printed on nice paper with so many pages bit zero content.

Kind of like those womens magazines with all the ads.

Its clearly all about money now'a'days, but its not just GW its everything ( more or less )
They cant add detailed painting tips, as that would make there painting guide pointless to buy. That goes double for terrain. A sad sad truth.

Now im not promoting it but im "just saying " anything GW "prints" can be torrented, so i dont know why they would care so much. IMO

But as for the world being about money now and not for the love of things, a perfect example would be Sports. They dont play for the love of the game anymore, they play for money, our money in reality.
As does GW...

I see a form letter reply in your future. Unless ypu are throwing then praise that is about all you are going to get from them.

PhantomViper wrote:
Since they actively support other games in their magazine and even allow miniatures from other manufacturers in their official tournaments (as long as they don't produce the mini themselves as well), don't you think that you are exaggerating a bit?

No, I dont think that I am exagerrating, because actually they dont. You probably missed that pretty big fuss when BF announced that no other miniatures apart of BF can be used in their official tournaments, because "BF invented WW2 as THE HOBBY and now everything related to 15mm wargames belongs to ". And then they allegedly sent pretty arrogant letter to the Plastic Soldier Company, which they allegedly see as their main competitor. I have not seen this letter, but someone who is pretty close to the PSC claimed that he did and it was not nice... And then BF allegedly contacted biggest online retailers and advised them not to stock the PSC products in return promising early pre-orders of their stuff. And finally You cannot discuss other 3rd party 15mm manufacturers on their forum, because they kinda host it, pay for it and expect that you will buy minis from only. The biggest problem with this is that historical wargame community does not recognised this "inherently GW attitude of - I is makin' da rules and you gotta be playin' by dem and buying minis from me or else get da hell outta my shop". Historical wargames are about "forum shopping" - you get the minis and rulesets, you dont like rulesets, you get other sets and play them with minis you already have or if you dont have, you search for manufacturer who hpthas them (instead for converting your own Voidraven Bomber or other non-existent model from "GW approved bits"). So BF got quite a harsh response and had to concede some points, but this still went into the history and folks remember it.

This thread again?

No one will ever read this email. You could have emailed him the cure for cancer but due to bad presentation he will delete it the second he gets past the first line.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
I'd suggest rejigging the wording, cutting the insults and then resending it.

And if mattyrm's telling you to cut the insults, then you know you need to!

Excellent point, well presented.

Is there still that paragraph at the beginning of the mag saying we get lots mail, we do read every letter but if you want a reply, you must send us an IRC (I think this is some sort of prepaid postage) and be patient... ? Once you accept that they are trying to sell things you don't need, life gets easier. I don't even flick through it now in Tesco's because they've included some piece of loose paper or other as a pretext to seal the whole thing in a plastic bag. To me this says "WARNING: no worthwhile content, but we don't want you to know this until you have paid for it and taken it home!". I recall reading that What's New Today was going to improve at the same time as WD and instead we still get the "New products available to buy in7 days/tomorrow/here's some new product bought and painted within 12 hours by an eager beaver" posts. That's why I linger on the GW site approximately only 30 seconds per day before moving on to something more interesting. GW may lose out on my money as a result, but they clearly don't care.

CainTheHunter wrote:
So BF got quite a harsh response and had to concede some points, but this still went into the history and folks remember it.

Yeah, it's why I completely ignored the new FOW box set, despite everyone raving about how great a deal it is. I've more than had my fill of GW's crap for about six years now and I'm not going to do it all over again with another company if I can help it.

Backfire wrote:
I've always wanted to know, since most everyone agree that White Dwarf "has become terrible", when exactly was that "Golden era" when it was good? Because seriously I've read complaints of WD sucking "these days" since at least 1988.

It's always been worthless. It's just that in the pre-internet days, you couldn't get studio-quality photos of well-painted albeit garish miniatures and lackluster articles anywhere else.

nkelsch wrote:
No one will ever read this email. You could have emailed him the cure for cancer but due to bad presentation he will delete it the second he gets past the first line.

I doubt they even monitor those mailboxes at all. Why would they? Anything from non-preapproved senders goes to the bin and deleted with the spam

 curran12 wrote:
A letter of cursing sarcasm. I'm sure you'll get an immediate response and things will instantly change for the better.

my thoughts exactly

 -Loki- wrote:
Unfortunately, as soon as you swore in that letter, it gave them an excuse to bin it. If you want them to take you seriously, at least act like an adult. There was no need for that at all.

This.

Feedback even from paying customers must be polite and specific to be effective. You've got the shell of a good letter there, consider rewriting it with out sarcadm and rideness and it stands a better chance of getting results.

Everyone seems to be hung up on the word 'crap', I assume that the letter he sent to White Dwarf was the bold lettering part?If that is so, 'crap' was not a factor here! In this day and age I have to say that 'crap' no longer can be seen as a curse(unless of course you are easily offended). It is more used as a form of exclamation nowadays;anything from dropping your newly sprayed mini on the grass to the superglue not sticking! If he had used a more direct wording then I doubt they would read it.
I think they will read it, surely they will be looking for feedback both positive and negative as they have no doubt spent a fortune on the (ahem) re-design and need to know that they are getting it right or (cough!) wrong?

The craziest thing about the "new White Dwarf" is you'd think a monthly magazine of the biggest miniture war gaming company in the world with 3 primary games and tons of content under its belt would struggle to fit in everything they should have every issue. Yet it's the reverse, they're struggling to fill the pages of the magazine and have to fill them up with phonebook information and so on.

It just shows the laziness, ineptitude, and apathy the "new white dwarf" staff has.

Even that conversion article they put in, which at first I thought was cool with the first issue with dakkajet fanciness, but the latest two were...crap. The inquisitor lord in the second(?) issue was a piece of absolute...*Ahem*. It was bad. very bad.

Others have said it, but I wanted to reinforce.

Your letter sounds like whining, not a real complaint from a serious customer. You will be taken far more seriously if you write in a firm, polite but assertive, manner.

Note that I don't disagree with any of your "points," just the way they were presented.

Slipstream wrote:
Everyone seems to be hung up on the word 'crap', I assume that the letter he sent to White Dwarf was the bold lettering part?If that is so, 'crap' was not a factor here! In this day and age I have to say that 'crap' no longer can be seen as a curse(unless of course you are easily offended). It is more used as a form of exclamation nowadays;anything from dropping your newly sprayed mini on the grass to the superglue not sticking! If he had used a more direct wording then I doubt they would read it.
I think they will read it, surely they will be looking for feedback both positive and negative as they have no doubt spent a fortune on the (ahem) re-design and need to know that they are getting it right or (cough!) wrong?

The fact that a word is accepted in casual conversation doesn't make it suitable for a formal letter. Unfortunately, it seems that for many people the division between how you talk in private with friends and how you speak to everyone else is rapidly being eroded.

The point of "customer service" is not to figure out how quickly you can ignore the customer. The whole point of the old saw of if you curse, you will be hung up on is to prevent customer service reps from being verbally threatened. Saying a naughty word doesn't give an automatic "get out of responding card" to any complaint.

If someone is complaining, it is because they feel wronged. Someone who feels wronged will be upset. It is natural for someone who is upset, who has been wronged, to actually, you know, be upset. Real customer service understands this, and focuses on fixing the problem, not waiting for one slip of the tongue (or pen) from someone who is communicating they are unhappy as an excuse not to address the issue.

I feel sorry for folks who are so trained by corporate BS to think that they are never allowed to be upset. No. You're not allowed to threaten a person, but absolutely you are allowed to be upset, even if you use a "naughty" word. There is a huge difference between saying this situation is bs and calling someone an donkey-cave.

Another rule often bandied about regarding contacting companies is that you shouldn't say you'll never buy again, because then there is absolutely no reason to address your issues, you're a lost customer, so who cares? Yet the customer service gurus here proclaim if you continue to buy, they have no reason to change, either. So which is it?

I think the OPs letter did get the point across of being disappointed. And by saying the intent was to continue to be a customer, there is a reason to care about the complaint. But you'd actually have to be communicating with a company that cares. GW doesn't. That is the problem, not some questionable language or wording.

Fair enough if the OP is upset because his personal tastes aren't met and fair enough if he would like to voice it, but am I really the only one who noticed that his letter looks like it was written by a spoiled child and not a critical customer?

It is riddled with veiled insults and blatant sarcasm. It has nothing to do with whether you are upset or not; it has everything to do with how you carry yourself through your remarks and whether or not your opinion will be rightfully respected. There is nothing wrong with civilized discourse.

Overall, very well written. I would have left out the whole "feth-all" part though. A bit too much, and swearing never leaves much room for negotiation.

 Gymnogyps wrote:
I feel sorry for folks who are so trained by corporate BS to think that they are never allowed to be upset.

Nobody has said that you're not allowed to be upset.

All that is being said is that being upset is no excuse for being rude, particularly when the person that you are being rude to is not the person directly responsible for whatever it is you are upset about.

Speaking as someone with a considerable amount of customer service experience, I would point out that a lot of the time, even if it doesn't get you immediately ignored, being rude just gets you a less satisfactory outcome, because professional or no the person you are being rude to is also a person.

The customer who comes in with a complaint but is courteous and understanding about it gets service. The customer who storms in in swearing and stamping their feet is just as likely to receive the bare minimum required to get him out of the building as quickly as possible.

CainTheHunter wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Since they actively support other games in their magazine and even allow miniatures from other manufacturers in their official tournaments (as long as they don't produce the mini themselves as well), don't you think that you are exaggerating a bit?

No, I dont think that I am exagerrating, because actually they dont. You probably missed that pretty big fuss when BF announced that no other miniatures apart of BF can be used in their official tournaments, because "BF invented WW2 as THE HOBBY and now everything related to 15mm wargames belongs to ". And then they allegedly sent pretty arrogant letter to the Plastic Soldier Company, which they allegedly see as their main competitor. I have not seen this letter, but someone who is pretty close to the PSC claimed that he did and it was not nice... And then BF allegedly contacted biggest online retailers and advised them not to stock the PSC products in return promising early pre-orders of their stuff. And finally You cannot discuss other 3rd party 15mm manufacturers on their forum, because they kinda host it, pay for it and expect that you will buy minis from only. The biggest problem with this is that historical wargame community does not recognised this "inherently GW attitude of - I is makin' da rules and you gotta be playin' by dem and buying minis from me or else get da hell outta my shop". Historical wargames are about "forum shopping" - you get the minis and rulesets, you dont like rulesets, you get other sets and play them with minis you already have or if you dont have, you search for manufacturer who hpthas them (instead for converting your own Voidraven Bomber or other non-existent model from "GW approved bits"). So BF got quite a harsh response and had to concede some points, but this still went into the history and folks remember it.

personally i would never take a bag of mcdonalds into someone's restaurant, sit down, and eat it. that would be pretty douchey.

i dont know alot about "historical wargaming" and the special rules that supposedly apply to it but to me it seems like common sense to only use third party models/bits at home or a non brand specific store that doesnt care.

 insaniak wrote:

 Gymnogyps wrote:
I feel sorry for folks who are so trained by corporate BS to think that they are never allowed to be upset.

Nobody has said that you're not allowed to be upset.

All that is being said is that being upset is no excuse for being rude, particularly when the person that you are being rude to is not the person directly responsible for whatever it is you are upset about.

Speaking as someone with a considerable amount of customer service experience, I would point out that a lot of the time, even if it doesn't get you immediately ignored, being rude just gets you a less satisfactory outcome, because professional or no the person you are being rude to is also a person.

The customer who comes in with a complaint but is courteous and understanding about it gets service. The customer who storms in in swearing and stamping their feet is just as likely to receive the bare minimum required to get him out of the building as quickly as possible.

Agreed. Opening fire on some kid on minimum wage (when your real target is Kirby) is not going to solve the problem. Like many people said, the only way WD will change is when people vote with their wallets. Most people on this site would agree that WD is a bad magazine, but if it continues to sell well and make profit, no sane company would change that formula. It's all about the bottom line.
GW doesn't bother that much about it's customers, so why should you bother about them. Get better models/deals from rival companies, buy second hand etc etc. It's a competitive market and there is no excuse for shackling yourself to GW.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Gymnogyps wrote:
I feel sorry for folks who are so trained by corporate BS to think that they are never allowed to be upset.

Nobody has said that you're not allowed to be upset.

All that is being said is that being upset is no excuse for being rude, particularly when the person that you are being rude to is not the person directly responsible for whatever it is you are upset about.

Speaking as someone with a considerable amount of customer service experience, I would point out that a lot of the time, even if it doesn't get you immediately ignored, being rude just gets you a less satisfactory outcome, because professional or no the person you are being rude to is also a person.

The customer who comes in with a complaint but is courteous and understanding about it gets service. The customer who storms in in swearing and stamping their feet is just as likely to receive the bare minimum required to get him out of the building as quickly as possible.

Agreed. Opening fire on some kid on minimum wage (when your real target is Kirby) is not going to solve the problem. Like many people said, the only way WD will change is when people vote with their wallets. Most people on this site would agree that WD is a bad magazine, but if it continues to sell well and make profit, no sane company would change that formula. It's all about the bottom line.
GW doesn't bother that much about it's customers, so why should you bother about them. Get better models/deals from rival companies, buy second hand etc etc. It's a competitive market and there is no excuse for shackling yourself to GW.

Second this.

Why get mad, get moving, to something else.

While slightly off topic, I thought you might want a chuckle at a recent correspondence between myself and gw customer service:

Original email:

'On 19 November 2012 22:54, <XXXXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
Hi there,

I recently bought a Space Marine Battleforce. I'm a little confused though. I used to play Warhammer and 40k a lot, many years ago, and have recently returned to the hobby. I bought the Battleforce to expand my old lead army. The kit itself is ok, despite a lot of pretty horrendous mold lines. Where I'm really confused is with some of the marine sprues. I started putting a lot of the marines together tonight, to find that the kit include 7 pairs of MK6, 'Corvus' type legs, but only four MK6 'beakie' helmets. Are the contents of the kit correct? It seems somewhat short sighted to put in more legs than helmets, as then my marines will look somewhat stupid when held up against Games Workshop's own canon.

I understand that many might just put MK7 helmets onto the MK6 legs, but the rest of my existing army is the old lead miniatures, and every other model with MK6 legs has a beakie helmet. I'm pretty stunned that GW are selling a kit which forces purchasers to ignore well established GW canon if they want to use every model supplied in the box.

I'd appreciate if you could advise whether the my Battleforce is correct in having a discrepancy between MK6 legs and Mk6 helmets, or if I am missing a sprue with the rest of the Beakie helmets.

Best Regards

XXXXXXXXX'

GW's response:
'Hi XXXX,

Thanks for your email regarding your Space Marine Battleforce. The kit is indeed correct and you do receive an extra pair of legs. This is due to the Battleforce being created by combining several different kits we make.

I hope this is of help and if you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to get in contact.

Regards,

XXXXXXXX
Games Workshop Customer Service'

My next response:
'On 25 Nov 2012, at 14:25, XXXXXXXXXX wrote:

I'm sorry XXXX, but I don't think you have understood my e-mail. I don't have an extra set of legs. I'm three 'Beakie' helmets short of being able to make up all the enclosed models in line with Games Workshop's own canon. In addition, after reading this months' White Dwarf, I'm afraid my return to the hobby has been a pretty unpleasant experience. You seemed to be making progress on the magazine front, but the latest issue is just a hundred odd pages of advertising. You are essentially charging your customers to look at your adverts.

It seems the Games Workshop I used to know is long dead and buried. I'll see if Privateer Press take their customers and my disposable income a bit more seriously.

Regards

XXXXXX'

No response after that....

 Eggs wrote:
My next response:
'On 25 Nov 2012, at 14:25, XXXXXXXXXX wrote:

I'm sorry XXXX, but I don't think you have understood my e-mail. I don't have an extra set of legs. I'm three 'Beakie' helmets short of being able to make up all the enclosed models in line with Games Workshop's own canon. In addition, after reading this months' White Dwarf, I'm afraid my return to the hobby has been a pretty unpleasant experience. You seemed to be making progress on the magazine front, but the latest issue is just a hundred odd pages of advertising. You are essentially charging your customers to look at your adverts.

It seems the Games Workshop I used to know is long dead and buried. I'll see if Privateer Press take their customers and my disposable income a bit more seriously.

Regards

XXXXXX'

No response after that....

Why would they respond to that?

Dunno. Shame maybe? The fact they deliberately misinterpreted my email to avoid actually answering my question properly was enough to stop me caring anyway. It's obvious that they don't give a toss about their customers, so what? I should just say 'thanks very much for ripping me off, I'll be sure to come back soon?'

I'm pretty sure it's established that Space Marines of the 40k timeline often wear mis-matching armour.

Was that really enough of a burning issue for you to complain?

I admit I had hopes when a new lineup was announced and an improvement to the content promised.

It would appear 'what we are producing is considered crap' got through as a message, especially via the medium of sales. It would also appear that what was required to improve the magazine was not conveyed and the senior management's distance both from the fan-base and the product they sell was telling in this.

I believe we have seen a steady deterioration over the last 10 years and beyond as the company's higher echelons were moved over from people who'd come up through the company and were hobbyists, to recruited corporate management who had no interest in the product or it's consumers.

I have it on good authority from two people who worked at moderately senior positions in sales and the design/art studio, that several of the senior management have a directly antagonistic attitude to the 'nerds' that buy their products past a certain age (mid teens) and also a similarly low regard for their own devoted store employees recruited from enthusiastic gamers.

So, these elements are responsible for approving the content of the magazine and ensuring it has the 'correct' levels of advertising new stock and conveys the new stock's saleability. Is it any wonder it remains without merit as a hobbyists magazine when it's overseen by people who have a negative perception of the people who buy it?

You see it is crass nonsense when people cry Games Workshop hates us, because the folks in the stores don't and the folks in the design studio don't and the authors and the painters don't... But a number of the senior management have a very strong disdain for us and if I were running a company that makes 'the best model soldiers in the world' and discovered that several of my management team, that I'd brought into the company from other corporate positions, considered the product and it's customer base as 'sad nerds', I'd take those sharp suited lads out to the back yard and put a bullet in them, figuratively speaking... And even if I didn't do that, I'd remove them from the product approval process.

 Eggs wrote:
While slightly off topic, I thought you might want a chuckle at a recent correspondence between myself and gw customer service:

Original email:

'On 19 November 2012 22:54, <XXXXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
Hi there,

I recently bought a Space Marine Battleforce. I'm a little confused though. I used to play Warhammer and 40k a lot, many years ago, and have recently returned to the hobby. I bought the Battleforce to expand my old lead army. The kit itself is ok, despite a lot of pretty horrendous mold lines. Where I'm really confused is with some of the marine sprues. I started putting a lot of the marines together tonight, to find that the kit include 7 pairs of MK6, 'Corvus' type legs, but only four MK6 'beakie' helmets. Are the contents of the kit correct? It seems somewhat short sighted to put in more legs than helmets, as then my marines will look somewhat stupid when held up against Games Workshop's own canon.

I understand that many might just put MK7 helmets onto the MK6 legs, but the rest of my existing army is the old lead miniatures, and every other model with MK6 legs has a beakie helmet. I'm pretty stunned that GW are selling a kit which forces purchasers to ignore well established GW canon if they want to use every model supplied in the box.

I'd appreciate if you could advise whether the my Battleforce is correct in having a discrepancy between MK6 legs and Mk6 helmets, or if I am missing a sprue with the rest of the Beakie helmets.

Best Regards

XXXXXXXXX'

GW's response:
'Hi XXXX,

Thanks for your email regarding your Space Marine Battleforce. The kit is indeed correct and you do receive an extra pair of legs. This is due to the Battleforce being created by combining several different kits we make.

I hope this is of help and if you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to get in contact.

Regards,

XXXXXXXX
Games Workshop Customer Service'

My next response:
'On 25 Nov 2012, at 14:25, XXXXXXXXXX wrote:

I'm sorry XXXX, but I don't think you have understood my e-mail. I don't have an extra set of legs. I'm three 'Beakie' helmets short of being able to make up all the enclosed models in line with Games Workshop's own canon. In addition, after reading this months' White Dwarf, I'm afraid my return to the hobby has been a pretty unpleasant experience. You seemed to be making progress on the magazine front, but the latest issue is just a hundred odd pages of advertising. You are essentially charging your customers to look at your adverts.

It seems the Games Workshop I used to know is long dead and buried. I'll see if Privateer Press take their customers and my disposable income a bit more seriously.

Regards

XXXXXX'

No response after that....

You deserve no response. You got plenty of heads, you were just unreasonable complaining about mold lines and wanting specific heads. It is like me saying "I wanted all my orks to have helmets and while I got 10 bodies, only 6 of the 13 heads had helmets, How can I possibly have an ork army ready for battle without helmets? it is against GW's canon'" The kits are just fine, you are the one who wants an extreme 'pure' interpretation which you can do at added expense by buying bitz or multiple kits. The kit in this situation is not broken.

Your initial email was terrible and pretentious. You were looking for a flaw which wasn't there just to complain for the sake of complaining.

And your second response was equally bad. You just looked like a whiner and don't deserve a valid response.

nkelsch wrote:

 Eggs wrote:
While slightly off topic, I thought you might want a chuckle at a recent correspondence between myself and gw customer service:

Original email:

'On 19 November 2012 22:54, <XXXXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
Hi there,

I recently bought a Space Marine Battleforce. I'm a little confused though. I used to play Warhammer and 40k a lot, many years ago, and have recently returned to the hobby. I bought the Battleforce to expand my old lead army. The kit itself is ok, despite a lot of pretty horrendous mold lines. Where I'm really confused is with some of the marine sprues. I started putting a lot of the marines together tonight, to find that the kit include 7 pairs of MK6, 'Corvus' type legs, but only four MK6 'beakie' helmets. Are the contents of the kit correct? It seems somewhat short sighted to put in more legs than helmets, as then my marines will look somewhat stupid when held up against Games Workshop's own canon.

I understand that many might just put MK7 helmets onto the MK6 legs, but the rest of my existing army is the old lead miniatures, and every other model with MK6 legs has a beakie helmet. I'm pretty stunned that GW are selling a kit which forces purchasers to ignore well established GW canon if they want to use every model supplied in the box.

I'd appreciate if you could advise whether the my Battleforce is correct in having a discrepancy between MK6 legs and Mk6 helmets, or if I am missing a sprue with the rest of the Beakie helmets.

Best Regards

XXXXXXXXX'

GW's response:
'Hi XXXX,

Thanks for your email regarding your Space Marine Battleforce. The kit is indeed correct and you do receive an extra pair of legs. This is due to the Battleforce being created by combining several different kits we make.

I hope this is of help and if you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to get in contact.

Regards,

XXXXXXXX
Games Workshop Customer Service'

My next response:
'On 25 Nov 2012, at 14:25, XXXXXXXXXX wrote:

I'm sorry XXXX, but I don't think you have understood my e-mail. I don't have an extra set of legs. I'm three 'Beakie' helmets short of being able to make up all the enclosed models in line with Games Workshop's own canon. In addition, after reading this months' White Dwarf, I'm afraid my return to the hobby has been a pretty unpleasant experience. You seemed to be making progress on the magazine front, but the latest issue is just a hundred odd pages of advertising. You are essentially charging your customers to look at your adverts.

It seems the Games Workshop I used to know is long dead and buried. I'll see if Privateer Press take their customers and my disposable income a bit more seriously.

Regards

XXXXXX'

No response after that....

You deserve no response. You got plenty of heads, you were just unreasonable complaining about mold lines and wanting specific heads. It is like me saying "I wanted all my orks to have helmets and while I got 10 bodies, only 6 of the 13 heads had helmets, How can I possibly have an ork army ready for battle without helmets? it is against GW's canon'" The kits are just fine, you are the one who wants an extreme 'pure' interpretation which you can do at added expense by buying bitz or multiple kits. The kit in this situation is not broken.

Your initial email was terrible and pretentious. You were looking for a flaw which wasn't there just to complain for the sake of complaining.

And your second response was equally bad. You just looked like a whiner and don't deserve a valid response.

I agree whole heartedly.

nkelsch wrote:
The kit in this situation is not broken.

Your initial email was terrible and pretentious. You were looking for a flaw which wasn't there just to complain for the sake of complaining.

And your second response was equally bad. You just looked like a whiner and don't deserve a valid response.

I disagree. Last time I was involved in the hobby, certain helmets went with certain armour types. The design of the kit is lazy IMO - why should I spend up to £80 for a box of plastic men that don't have all the parts to make them properly, and then have to go and spend more on bits? The initial response was also lazy - claiming a falsehood to try and deflect this.

You may find it whining, and undeserving of response, but I was sending an honest complaint that I felt was justified at the time. Yes, I have OCD, but I also think that a company that has produced these things for decades would know enough about their own product to do things right. The GW I used to know IS long gone.

I don't complain for the sake of complaining. In fact I rarely complain about anything. On this occasion though, I was annoyed enough at what I take to be an incomplete kit to raise it, and IMO the response was a joke.

Not saying I didn't lose my temper with my second email. It happens to the best of us.

 Eggs wrote:
You may find it whining, and undeserving of response, but I was sending an honest complaint that I felt was justified at the time. Yes, I have OCD, but I also think that a company that has produced these things for decades would know enough about their own product to do things right. The GW I used to know IS long gone.

Oh yeah, completely forgot that all previous space marine kits 'back in the day' had the exact right types of armor Marks and no mixing between them.



There's rose colored glasses and then there is this.

Maybe it is rose coloured glasses, but I don't remember any mixed armours back then. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out how many heads to put on a sprue that has a set number of a type of legs. I'm pretty sure a monkey could do it.

 Eggs wrote:
Maybe it is rose coloured glasses, but I don't remember any mixed armours back then. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out how many heads to put on a sprue that has a set number of a type of legs. I'm pretty sure a monkey could do it.

You're not remembering very well then. As long as there have been plastic kits there have been mixed armor types and not enough pieces to make them all one type. Heck, RT marines have a variety of armor types mixed together.

I'm fairly certain that GW intentionally provides a variety of bits and armor types in each kit. There have never been instructions for assembling a specific mark of armor from any of the kits and it is largely a phenomenon external to normal modelling.

By all means, use whatever reason you want to run on to another company and play their game. No big deal. Just acknowledge that the one you happen to be using right now is unreasonable.

Fair enough. I'd never trust my memory much anyway.

 Eggs wrote:
Fair enough. I'd never trust my memory much anyway.

At least they actually came with helmets, unlike a good chunk of GW kits that either don't come with a part you need, or come with 1 when you need 2 or more.

You asked for a solution any reasonable person would understand is frankly, impossible given the information they list in their email to you. Specifically, the part where they mention that several kits are combined to create the battleforce. It is not, itself, cut specifically for that battleforce. That would be horribly inefficient, and GW gets enough complaints on that already. The way you listed your email was, sadly, also a touch scattered, so I can see in the volumes of responses they misunderstanding exactly what you were asking about... it took me until your own reply to understand exactly what the problem was.

You also mention the old lead miniatures... which were single piece models unless my memory fails me. I'll be perfectly honest here, if I saw a Marine with Mark 8 legs, with a Mark 4 Torso, with Mark 7 arms, and a Mark 6 helmet, with a Mark 3 backpack... I'd assume it was a Beakie, may note the unique backpack as modeler's choice, and move on with the game without another thought. I certainly wouldn't think your army looks stupid... and just seeing how many kitbashes are done on marines alone from box contents I'd doubt anyone else would either.

Make that squad a group of veterans, who've been in numerous campaigns, and have had to replace their armor with parts from other marks due to a lack of resources, or gathering parts of their fallen comrades and incorporating the parts into the squad so that they always have their fallen brothers with them; a more outward and literal "No one is left behind" ritual. Given the bond between squadmates in the canon, I think it'd be a perfectly legitimate background and flavor for a unit.

You want to see horrid packaging? Check out the genestealer box... each group of 4 stealers comes with 4 normal heads and then a single head for each other option. So if you wanted the tendrils for ymgarl... well you'll be scouring bits companies for a while. Most tyranid boxes are like that, (the ravener box being the other glaring example IMO) where you have only one of each head style. For folks like me, who use the various head crests to denote squads, it makes it a nightmare, especially since Bits websites seem to treat tyranid bits like they're plague-carriers. ><

 Marrak wrote:
Specifically, the part where they mention that several kits are combined to create the battleforce. It is not, itself, cut specifically for that battleforce.

Which is a red herring. If you buy a Space Marine Tactical Squad, you also don't get the right number of parts to put everyone in full sets of complete armour of a single mark.

The correct answer from customer service would have been that Space Marines aren't sold as specific armour marks, and it's generally assumed that it's ok to build them in mismatched armour.

last white dwarf I got was for the dreadfleet release and it had general painting tips... it was given to me from a staffer after he took the sisters army list from it (and I having bought a box and it being my birthday)

it was alright
but I actually enjoy dreadfleet so what does that say about me...

 Eggs wrote:
Maybe it is rose coloured glasses, but I don't remember any mixed armours back then. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out how many heads to put on a sprue that has a set number of a type of legs. I'm pretty sure a monkey could do it.

They had 'em, and you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

 insaniak wrote:

The correct answer from customer service would have been that Space Marines aren't sold as specific armour marks, and it's generally assumed that it's ok to build them in mismatched armour.

I've always thought this is actually a nice touch. Historical armies usually did not have matching armour or uniforms (that is a very recent developement). Your average Crusade-era feodal army had knights and men-at-arms in all type of armour. Even Roman legions often mixed different sets of armour types and weapons. Often people don't realize this as they only see such armies in movies, where extras and CGI models often have identical props to cut production costs.

I do have to say that i nolonger buy WD. I have fortune of having been given a large collection of the old WDs. When i compared these to the new "improved" variants there is no comparison. The old ones had content and interesting articles. the advertising was done in the form of a selection of interesting minatures usually relevant to one or more of the articles and/or battlereport(s) that had featured, in the back few pages of the magazine.

These newer WDs are hideous and just a massed pack of advertising. now why do i want to pay a frankly quite high price for what is a glorified advertisment?

My question would be why did they remove all issue numbering from WD?

They have? That's kind of ... odd.

To remove all association with anything from the past? To not put off new readers who pick up the magazine and say "this magazine started before I was born! Wow how much have I missed, I won't bother"

Unlikely, although I guess the omission is also a kind of metaphor for how the magazine is the same as it's earlier incarnations in name only.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I admit I had hopes when a new lineup was announced and an improvement to the content promised.

It would appear 'what we are producing is considered crap' got through as a message, especially via the medium of sales. It would also appear that what was required to improve the magazine was not conveyed and the senior management's distance both from the fan-base and the product they sell was telling in this.

I believe we have seen a steady deterioration over the last 10 years and beyond as the company's higher echelons were moved over from people who'd come up through the company and were hobbyists, to recruited corporate management who had no interest in the product or it's consumers.

I have it on good authority from two people who worked at moderately senior positions in sales and the design/art studio, that several of the senior management have a directly antagonistic attitude to the 'nerds' that buy their products past a certain age (mid teens) and also a similarly low regard for their own devoted store employees recruited from enthusiastic gamers.

So, these elements are responsible for approving the content of the magazine and ensuring it has the 'correct' levels of advertising new stock and conveys the new stock's saleability. Is it any wonder it remains without merit as a hobbyists magazine when it's overseen by people who have a negative perception of the people who buy it?

You see it is crass nonsense when people cry Games Workshop hates us, because the folks in the stores don't and the folks in the design studio don't and the authors and the painters don't... But a number of the senior management have a very strong disdain for us and if I were running a company that makes 'the best model soldiers in the world' and discovered that several of my management team, that I'd brought into the company from other corporate positions, considered the product and it's customer base as 'sad nerds', I'd take those sharp suited lads out to the back yard and put a bullet in them, figuratively speaking... And even if I didn't do that, I'd remove them from the product approval process.

Spot on as usual. As I said earlier, If a company treats you with contempt, treat them with contempt. By this I mean, if you can get the same product cheaper somewhere else, go there. The modern corporate world is not interested in loyalty, and neither should you be. Vote with your wallet.

A friend of mine who once worked in a GW store got in trouble for encouraging people to buy their glues elsewhere in craft shops (you were getting triple the amount for half the price of GW)

I know what your thinking, but he's a decent guy who believed in customer service even if it meant pointing them in another company's direction. They way he saw it was that why should low income kids get ripped off. Needless to say, he didn't last much longer at GW and the store suffered as a result. But for me, it summed up GW's thinking - i.e squeeze customers til they're dry.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I

You see it is crass nonsense when people cry Games Workshop hates us, because the folks in the stores don't and the folks in the design studio don't and the authors and the painters don't... But a number of the senior management have a very strong disdain for us and if I were running a company that makes 'the best model soldiers in the world' and discovered that several of my management team, that I'd brought into the company from other corporate positions, considered the product and it's customer base as 'sad nerds', I'd take those sharp suited lads out to the back yard and put a bullet in them, figuratively speaking... And even if I didn't do that, I'd remove them from the product approval process.

I heard a similar thing a couple of times, although the term I heard bandied about referred to a certain 4-legged wooly mammal that has a propensity for following others of its kind

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
To be fair I doubt the editor gets called into a room and told "You must put out bland crap!"

Anyway, WD being bad (or still bad as the case may be) isn't the worst part. It's the people who were sucked in by the flashy new paper and big photos saying the 'new' WD is 'better' that I find disturbing. It's a little too "sheep like" for me.

I do agree with this, the biggest problem that I can see with the 'new look' WD is that it's become an even bigger catalogue of "NEW, SHINY WANT!" than it's ever been.. And that makes me sad
The lack of actual articles is extremely telling, it just smacks of journalistic lazyness to me. I used to read, that's READ, a copy of WD over a nice long cup of tea or three. The chances of me doing that now is almost zero....Damn shame.

No journalists have ever been hurt in the production of WD.

Hence no exposes of Priestly and Chambers Cocaine addictions. No 'Kirby gaks in each batch of molten finecast' shocks.

Before GW sold walls with skulls on™ It was a hobby mag, there was some relevant content. Now GW is about kids, new entrants and shifting everything with skulls on, the content reflects this.

I remember having issues filled with completely new unit and in some cases army rules (new world norse list was good), in depth conversion articles (how a guy made an awesome Huron from bits), a massive article, with real paragraphs of writing about great player armies (the airborne jungle army was one of the best, IG rough riders on judge dread hover boards and IG Tanks made with landspeeders antigrav drives).

The new WD is just made of glossy pictures and information you can freely view on the internet, if it continues having no exclucive content then there is no reason to buy it.

Backfire wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

The correct answer from customer service would have been that Space Marines aren't sold as specific armour marks, and it's generally assumed that it's ok to build them in mismatched armour.

I've always thought this is actually a nice touch. Historical armies usually did not have matching armour or uniforms (that is a very recent developement). Your average Crusade-era feodal army had knights and men-at-arms in all type of armour. Even Roman legions often mixed different sets of armour types and weapons. Often people don't realize this as they only see such armies in movies, where extras and CGI models often have identical props to cut production costs.

Although to be picky, Space Marines are not historical.

But yeah... even though modern forces seem more standardized (and are) there seems to be a lot of irregularity scattered around... Selected places for gear, specialist gear itself, etc. Personalization depending on the force and era. And variations in vehicle model production variants can be a huge rabbit hole to explore.

My own experience with GW

Wrote polite complimentary letter in 2009, no response.

Will say masterclass painting articles they published few years back were good. I saved them all in a plastic sleeve folder, looked up painting white yesterday actually in the White Scars / Khan masterclass.

Having said that have not bought WD for over a year and each time I look through it there is nothing there for me

Also find a huge amount of pressure when i go into a store. Inevitably get swooped on by sales rep who wants to probe what i play and align latest release for marines. Dont like having to interrupt them if i only have a few minutes and just want to have a browse so sometimes its just easier to avoid going in.

Wasn't "content" one of the promises from GW when they reorganized WD? Aside from the battle reports (which were never a priority of mine) what are they actually doing to deliver on that promise?

When did feth become a curse word? That is fething ridiculous.

FWIW, I sent my e-mail:

"To Whom it May Concern,


I have been playing your games since the mid nineties; I used to subscribe to White Dwarf; in fact, I did for about a five year period.

As the prices began to rise, I began picking up issues at my local store, if they had interesting articles or meaningful content.

The price of the magazine has long outpaced any meaningful content; my opinion is the magazine is nothing more than a catalog of product.

I think it is unfortunate that I have to scour the internet for information I am looking for, blogs for topical subjects within the hobby and YouTube for painting tips and tricks; but I am also lucky to have these options because none of them are provided by the White Dwarf.

I still buy the your models, I think they are expensive, but they do have value. White Dwarf is seriously lacking.


A concerned fanboy,

- Ben"

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A friend of mine who once worked in a GW store got in trouble for encouraging people to buy their glues elsewhere in craft shops (you were getting triple the amount for half the price of GW)

I know what your thinking, but he's a decent guy who believed in customer service even if it meant pointing them in another company's direction. They way he saw it was that why should low income kids get ripped off. Needless to say, he didn't last much longer at GW and the store suffered as a result. But for me, it summed up GW's thinking - i.e squeeze customers til they're dry.

The sad thing is many people will respect someone who points them to competitors for something that is more suitable (it's a fairly common trait in the wider industry, as most of the staff are genuine hobbyists), and will buy more from someone who is honest and not out to shaft them, so he may have lost out on a glue sale but made up in other areas with repeat customers.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A friend of mine who once worked in a GW store got in trouble for encouraging people to buy their glues elsewhere in craft shops (you were getting triple the amount for half the price of GW)

I know what your thinking, but he's a decent guy who believed in customer service even if it meant pointing them in another company's direction. They way he saw it was that why should low income kids get ripped off. Needless to say, he didn't last much longer at GW and the store suffered as a result. But for me, it summed up GW's thinking - i.e squeeze customers til they're dry.

The sad thing is many people will respect someone who points them to competitors for something that is more suitable (it's a fairly common trait in the wider industry, as most of the staff are genuine hobbyists), and will buy more from someone who is honest and not out to shaft them, so he may have lost out on a glue sale but made up in other areas with repeat customers.

Exactly. There are many people on this site who will tell you about popular GW managers trying to build a local gaming group, and sometimes they turned a blind eye to small things (rival minis or glue for example) and still being screwed by GW top brass. The end result was usually the store suffering and the gaming community suffering. I could tell you tales of people hassled for using a non GW tape measure in a GW store (despite spending $50 on stuff in the same store on a previous day), but most people would have similar stories to tell.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I admit I had hopes when a new lineup was announced and an improvement to the content promised.

It would appear 'what we are producing is considered crap' got through as a message, especially via the medium of sales. It would also appear that what was required to improve the magazine was not conveyed and the senior management's distance both from the fan-base and the product they sell was telling in this.

I believe we have seen a steady deterioration over the last 10 years and beyond as the company's higher echelons were moved over from people who'd come up through the company and were hobbyists, to recruited corporate management who had no interest in the product or it's consumers.

I have it on good authority from two people who worked at moderately senior positions in sales and the design/art studio, that several of the senior management have a directly antagonistic attitude to the 'nerds' that buy their products past a certain age (mid teens) and also a similarly low regard for their own devoted store employees recruited from enthusiastic gamers.

So, these elements are responsible for approving the content of the magazine and ensuring it has the 'correct' levels of advertising new stock and conveys the new stock's saleability. Is it any wonder it remains without merit as a hobbyists magazine when it's overseen by people who have a negative perception of the people who buy it?

You see it is crass nonsense when people cry Games Workshop hates us, because the folks in the stores don't and the folks in the design studio don't and the authors and the painters don't... But a number of the senior management have a very strong disdain for us and if I were running a company that makes 'the best model soldiers in the world' and discovered that several of my management team, that I'd brought into the company from other corporate positions, considered the product and it's customer base as 'sad nerds', I'd take those sharp suited lads out to the back yard and put a bullet in them, figuratively speaking... And even if I didn't do that, I'd remove them from the product approval process.

Spot on as usual. As I said earlier, If a company treats you with contempt, treat them with contempt. By this I mean, if you can get the same product cheaper somewhere else, go there. The modern corporate world is not interested in loyalty, and neither should you be. Vote with your wallet.

A friend of mine who once worked in a GW store got in trouble for encouraging people to buy their glues elsewhere in craft shops (you were getting triple the amount for half the price of GW)

I know what your thinking, but he's a decent guy who believed in customer service even if it meant pointing them in another company's direction. They way he saw it was that why should low income kids get ripped off. Needless to say, he didn't last much longer at GW and the store suffered as a result. But for me, it summed up GW's thinking - i.e squeeze customers til they're dry.

I haven’t read this entire thread so forgive me if the points I’m about to make have already been covered.

Whilst I agree somewhat that the “suits” in charge of GW have a degree of contempt for the mature gamer lets not forget that they have managed to change a company that was on the verge of going bust into a profitable and still successful business.

In “the good old days” when GW was being run by people interested in the hobby it may have been better for us as the customers that GW like it was, but the company was also making itself bankrupt due to poor business decisions as it was “better for the gamer”. The fact is if GW had gone bust 10 years ago (forgive me, I can’t remember exactly when GW was 'rescued' but it was around then) then a lot of the companies that have succeeded since them would have failed. GW are still responsible for giving the vast majority of gamers their first experience of wargaming.

Personally I quite like the current setup – GW aim at getting the kids in, those who become gamers ultimately moving to other companies that can focus on making games for gamers without having to worry about getting the kids interested in wargaming.

Would I take the old “we’re one of you” board of GW over the current “suits” – no I wouldn’t, I think that would be much worse for the hobby in the long term when GW went out of business. Of cause the best choice of would be a “suit” who is also a wargamer, but lets be honest, how many people who are capable of successfully running an international business also have the time to be fully into a hobby like wargaming? It’s probably few and far between.

There are a few on Dakka. Problem is aligning their hobby with a CV the board would accept.

FYI, I spoke to Jes at games day and he was very aware of the specifics of WD discussion on this forum. I would say it is highly probably that he, or others in the WD team, will read this thread. Posting letters to him here is quite a very possible to make contact (but dont expect any reply).

As for myself, I am bordering on cancelling my subscription too. The last 2 issues have been dross, I've got every issue dating back to 144, (and a few earlier) so it is not a light decision to stop buying as I've been collecting for many many years. I just view it as a waste of space on my bookshelves these days. The first re-jigged issue was a minor improvement in content, but it has quickly slid back the other way and is a waste of money and space at the moment.

Unfortunatly I too bought into the "New & Improved White Dwarf", and started up a subscription. I hadnt even touched a White Dwarf since around 2001, but with all the new rules updates and whatnot, I figured it should be worth the cost.

Boy was I wrong, I have recieved 2 issues now, and they have been lackluster. The bck 1/4 of the mag is nothing but adverts, while the rest of the mag is just mindless rabble. Where are the "How to" articles?

I am going to assume that GW figures they should not give up the good stuff for free, so they can release some 40 dollar book.

The way I see it is they have us all over a barrel. If you want the new rules, then buy the Mag. The Mag kinda sucks because you dont get meaningful content. If you want the meaningful content, then buy this hobby book, but you had better not cancel the mag, or you will lose out on the rules. O, and all the useful painting tips and guides on the GW website, have been removed...nothing is free kiddies!

My subscription's ended as well. I simply don't see why I should pay that much for something worth more when burned than read (especially in this weather). If I want to find out about tactics, dakka's better. If I want a battle report, I can once again go to dakka, while I also enjoy youtube ones where I can see what's happening far more easily. If I want to see some good painting or ask for advice, once again it's dakka to the rescue.

 legoburner wrote:
FYI, I spoke to Jes at games day and he was very aware of the specifics of WD discussion on this forum. I would say it is highly probably that he, or others in the WD team, will read this thread. Posting letters to him here is quite a very possible to make contact (but dont expect any reply).

If that's the case I feel I need to point out that I won't be renewing my subscription either (and subscribing to WS&S), they've become so bad lately it's barely worth opening them*. The last one contained 2 interesting articles (Rivals and the Hobbit design interview with the Perry's) even if they were lacking in detail. The rest of the magazine seems like poorly concealed advertising/informercial.

I seriously recommend the staff at WD have a look at any older issue (say from 2+ years ago) and the Wargaming section of WH Smiths to see what other magazines in the field are capable of.

For instance, this months Wargames Illustrated (£4.50?) contains a series of articles on The French & Indian Wars (North America in the 1700's), the first of which contained more content than all of WD, and whilst I've no real interest in the period it was interesting because it was well written, contained some background and ideas on how to re-create some of the battles, as well as a set of fairly generic scenarios that I can use with any other game.

Compared to that, WD contained a lot of adverts for The Hobbit complete with hard to follow battle report and a list of paints to buy, some cheesy reviews for Black Library stuff, some filler stuff about gaming, some photos of an army, a brief discussion on what units are best, some pages on how the staff are painting things, and a huge listing of where all the store are.


*They get delivered. If I'd got a store subscription I probably wouldn't waste the time collecting them.

 legoburner wrote:
FYI, I spoke to Jes at games day and he was very aware of the specifics of WD discussion on this forum. I would say it is highly probably that he, or others in the WD team, will read this thread. Posting letters to him here is quite a very possible to make contact (but dont expect any reply).

As for myself, I am bordering on cancelling my subscription too. The last 2 issues have been dross, I've got every issue dating back to 144, (and a few earlier) so it is not a light decision to stop buying as I've been collecting for many many years. I just view it as a waste of space on my bookshelves these days. The first re-jigged issue was a minor improvement in content, but it has quickly slid back the other way and is a waste of money and space at the moment.

Its the public face of the business.

Jes, crack some heads, bruise some egos, sort it out.