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.

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.