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.

Just a random observation, but the official Age of Sigmar FB page has absolutely horrid "official" responses. Yesterday I asked, very politely, if they could clarify some of the summoning rules for matched play, and explained that I was loving the book, and the direction of the game, but felt a couple small areas could be cleared up. Mind you, I have the book as I am the one running the summer campaign for our FLGS.

Their response was to be super rude, tell me its clearly spelled out on page XYZ and maybe I should stop complaining until the book comes out. Of course I flipped to said page which clarified little, and their response mostly just indicated that they'd not very carefully read my post at all.

Looking through their other user posts, they're absolutely filled with that kind of bad attitude, and then being accusatory/blaming any comment that isn't just outright adoration.

Nothing much more to add, but i've been such a cheerleader of GW's recent improvements, and attitudinal shifts, that its disappointing to have such a crap interaction from one of their official voices.

My first instinct would be anyone can have a bad day, and as unprofessional as it is, this sort of thing happens.

If it's an ongoing trend though, over more than a few hours or a day at most, I'd say email somewhere else voicing your concerns, this is the last thing GW need for what they're attempting to do to work.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Just a random observation, but the official Age of Sigmar FB page has absolutely horrid "official" responses. Yesterday I asked, very politely, if they could clarify some of the summoning rules for matched play, and explained that I was loving the book, and the direction of the game, but felt a couple small areas could be cleared up. Mind you, I have the book as I am the one running the summer campaign for our FLGS.

Their response was to be super rude, tell me its clearly spelled out on page XYZ and maybe I should stop complaining until the book comes out. Of course I flipped to said page which clarified little, and their response mostly just indicated that they'd not very carefully read my post at all.

Looking through their other user posts, they're absolutely filled with that kind of bad attitude, and then being accusatory/blaming any comment that isn't just outright adoration.

Nothing much more to add, but i've been such a cheerleader of GW's recent improvements, and attitudinal shifts, that its disappointing to have such a crap interaction from one of their official voices.

Hmm, I skimmed the FB page for the post in question, but couldn't find it. All the GW answers I saw were pretty friendly,neutral,funny or informative depending on the matter at hand. I wouldn't ask for a concrete link as it would reveal your FB account so I can't really comment any more on this :/ . I've asked questions of my own and the answers have been helpful and polite enough.

 CoreCommander wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Just a random observation, but the official Age of Sigmar FB page has absolutely horrid "official" responses. Yesterday I asked, very politely, if they could clarify some of the summoning rules for matched play, and explained that I was loving the book, and the direction of the game, but felt a couple small areas could be cleared up. Mind you, I have the book as I am the one running the summer campaign for our FLGS.

Their response was to be super rude, tell me its clearly spelled out on page XYZ and maybe I should stop complaining until the book comes out. Of course I flipped to said page which clarified little, and their response mostly just indicated that they'd not very carefully read my post at all.

Looking through their other user posts, they're absolutely filled with that kind of bad attitude, and then being accusatory/blaming any comment that isn't just outright adoration.

Nothing much more to add, but i've been such a cheerleader of GW's recent improvements, and attitudinal shifts, that its disappointing to have such a crap interaction from one of their official voices.

Hmm, I skimmed the FB page for the post in question, but couldn't find it. All the GW answers I saw were pretty friendly,neutral,funny or informative depending on the matter at hand. I wouldn't ask for a concrete link as it would reveal your FB account so I can't really comment any more on this :/ . I've asked questions of my own and the answers have been helpful and polite enough.

I'm pretty sure they deleted it, because I can't find the other comments from people earlier in the day who similarly had really salty, unfriendly responses.

I'm glad if you are right though. I'd like to chalk things up to a person having a really bad day, because it was really quite rude, and the first time i'd seen a series of responses to individuals take that tone. Say what you will of GW, but even in their darkest years, people have always praised their customer service relationships.

I have never seen any rude posts by the AOS facebook page moderator before. They are always friendly and fairly neutral.

Yeah, it' s the gakky people who are playing that rude/obnoxious role. This weekend is crazy huge game-turning weekend so maybe some intern just finally cracked. We all have bad days, so nothing to worry. But I don't find it toxic usually. Forums are the most inhumanely possible/yet possible media for toxicity. Imagine, Warseer or BolS the FACEBOOK GROUP! MUHAHAHAHA!

It looks like they are getting asked the same question over and over and now their stock reply is "It's on page 108. Maybe wait until you have the book in your hands before asking clarifying questions". Which I guess could be taken to be slightly passive aggressive, but I wouldn't say it's overly rude or salty.

I find they are to nice actually, if they are to dumb to read then they should not be anwsered. People are asking questions about a produce they are not suppose to have.

Then you get the questions like it says I can ahoot into combat can I really? They should just ban them and move on.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I find they are to nice actually, if they are to dumb to read then they should not be anwsered. People are asking questions about a produce they are not suppose to have.

Then you get the questions like it says I can ahoot into combat can I really? They should just ban them and move on.

There's something about the typos, and incorrect usage of "to" here that makes this really work for me. :-p

In all seriousness though, I do have a valid question, and do have a right to have this product right now. If anything you would think they would try to be polite and helpful to the people running a community building event for them. :-)

But again, this all seems moot now, as i'll chalk it up to a lone individual's really bad day.

Or they could write clear rules in the first place...just sayin.

Nope never seen it be toxic before most GW comments I have seen have been informative and helpful.

hobojebus wrote:
Or they could write clear rules in the first place...just sayin.

Or people could stop trying to find the "hidden meanings" in the rules...just sayin.

Hey all! I was hoping you guys could clarify a summoning question for Matched-Play, as per the wonderful new General's Handbook. Do Flesh-Eater Courts abilities to generate Courtiers and the such count as a Summon Spell (even though they have no casting value, etc...), for the purposes of needing to reserve points for the added units? What about those like the Vargoulf Courtier who doesn't create new units, but rather adds random models to existing units? I assume the later is, just like a Skeleton unit with an Icon Bearer, NOT considered summoning? Thanks! So far I am loving the Handbook (I am running the event for my local game shop), but the summoning rules might need a little clarification.

1 Comment

Chronological

LikeShow More Reactions
Comment Share.


Comments

Warhammer Age of Sigmar

Warhammer Age of Sigmar Hi Mark,
Page 108 of the book fully explains how this works.
Maybe wait until you have the book in your hands before sending in questions on Matched Play.



I found it no problem and it's certainly not toxic and is
quite a sensible reply.

DiscoKing wrote:

Hey all! I was hoping you guys could clarify a summoning question for Matched-Play, as per the wonderful new General's Handbook. Do Flesh-Eater Courts abilities to generate Courtiers and the such count as a Summon Spell (even though they have no casting value, etc...), for the purposes of needing to reserve points for the added units? What about those like the Vargoulf Courtier who doesn't create new units, but rather adds random models to existing units? I assume the later is, just like a Skeleton unit with an Icon Bearer, NOT considered summoning? Thanks! So far I am loving the Handbook (I am running the event for my local game shop), but the summoning rules might need a little clarification.

1 Comment

Chronological

LikeShow More Reactions
Comment Share.


Comments

Warhammer Age of Sigmar

Warhammer Age of Sigmar Hi Mark,
Page 108 of the book fully explains how this works.
Maybe wait until you have the book in your hands before sending in questions on Matched Play.



I found it no problem and it's certainly not toxic and is
quite a sensible reply.

It's a little blunt, but to be fair it's a product no one should really have for another week.

Yeah but it's not exactly the customer's fault if they somehow get their hands on something early.

(Unless of course they acquire it illegally, but that's not really an assumption people should be making.)

At this point, I assume the guy running the page was told "Don't answer questions until the book is oficially put." And to preserve his job is being a bit blunt about it.

 Swampmist wrote:
At this point, I assume the guy running the page was told "Don't answer questions until the book is oficially put." And to preserve his job is being a bit blunt about it.

Seems fair. If the products not out yet, they shouldn't be answering questions about it anyway.

If that was the case wouldn't they delete your question so nobody else could possibly think someone already has a book and reply in PM?

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
At this point, I assume the guy running the page was told "Don't answer questions until the book is oficially put." And to preserve his job is being a bit blunt about it.

Seems fair. If the products not out yet, they shouldn't be answering questions about it anyway.

Good companies would; if it's in the hands of reviewers, then whoever is manning the service channels should have already seen it.

Plus, they could be more professional about it "We're sorry, we can't comment on books that haven't been released yet".

short and blunt is hardly "toxic".......

TheWanderer wrote:
short and blunt is hardly "toxic".......

Methinks OP has an agenda/ has no idea what toxic is.

TheWanderer wrote:
short and blunt is hardly "toxic".......

No but deleting threads and only having threads that put you in a positive light all the time is not correct either. I was surprised to read that some posters are saying posts are being deleted even though they were not said in a negative tone at all. So basically only having positive threads just shows me how "scared" a company can be then. A bit surprised by this.

His post hasn't been deleted,a quick scroll down visitors posts and there it is.

Herzlos wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
At this point, I assume the guy running the page was told "Don't answer questions until the book is oficially put." And to preserve his job is being a bit blunt about it.

Seems fair. If the products not out yet, they shouldn't be answering questions about it anyway.

Good companies would; if it's in the hands of reviewers, then whoever is manning the service channels should have already seen it.

Plus, they could be more professional about it "We're sorry, we can't comment on books that haven't been released yet".

It's in the hands of reviewers and shops to run Matched Play demos.

Maybe rather than sending in questions asking how X, Y, or Z works...you could try going to a GW store and asking to read through the book? They have it on hand just to drive up preorders.

"Come into the store and find out" is an absurdly stupid response in the age of social media.

Funnily enough it's indirectly the reason I haven't bought any GW models in 6+ months. I used to buy the odd blister or cheaper box every month or two to enter the local GW painting comp, but I got pretty sick of having to go down there to pick up the crappy newsletter they have to find out what the theme and judging date was. It's a half an hour drive just to find out information that should be on facebook so I stopped bothering, which meant I stopped entering, and stopped buying models for it.

 jonolikespie wrote:
"Come into the store and find out" is an absurdly stupid response in the age of social media.

Funnily enough it's indirectly the reason I haven't bought any GW models in 6+ months. I used to buy the odd blister or cheaper box every month or two to enter the local GW painting comp, but I got pretty sick of having to go down there to pick up the crappy newsletter they have to find out what the theme and judging date was. It's a half an hour drive just to find out information that should be on facebook so I stopped bothering, which meant I stopped entering, and stopped buying models for it.

To be fair, it isn't just GW shops that have the General's Compendiums. Independents had the ability to get them early as well.

Only reason I said GW shop is that all of them got the books for driving up preorders/interest in the campaign.

Neronoxx wrote:

TheWanderer wrote:
short and blunt is hardly "toxic".......

Methinks OP has an agenda/ has no idea what toxic is.

How is this thread back-firing and making me the bad guy? I am being as polite as I can, and even phrased my questions to their FB page in such a way that I was clearly showing that I love this new release and support their current direction.

Hell, i've had nothing but good things to say about GW in recent months, and am loving the choices they've made.

That said, Saturday saw several posts get deleted that I saw were removed with curt, unpleasant responses, from one individual to several different posters. Others were clearly left on their FB page, but some of their selectively deleted ones weren't rude in the least, and just happened to cross the path of the wrong person manning their FB page at a given moment. That's all.

@OP - I think you're reasonable and not "the bad guy".

There were however others that weren't happy with the whole summoning situation and I think what happened was that either through posts or PMs they made a huge stink and pushed the GW folks to the limit. You just happened to get caught in the resulting purge.

All reasonable people can break when pushed too far.

Yeah, I'm not sure why anyone would paint you as the bad guy here NTM. In defence of GW I think they were just a little blunt with their response.

If it's any consolation, page 108 does explain everything. I read it today in store.

Thanks guys. I appreciate that. I do try to always be a good advocate of gaming in general, good sportsmanship, etc... If anything i'm grateful for the hobby and try to show my appreciation for the games, and as often as is reasonable, the people who make those games.

I do see from this thread that some of the posts were left on the FB AoS page, while others really were deleted. Again, I will just guess that someone, as was said above, got overwhelmed with too many of the same questions, mostly from people who really didn't have the book, and my own post probably was just ill timed and caught in the midst of that.

Oh well. It really is all good. I just got the wrong impression of their general tone as that was my first ever interaction with their FB page, and it just happened to be a poor one.