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.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
anyone else disappointed that the CSR didnt reply in kind?

because it was a canned response written at least two years ago.

That's not a 'because'. They could have responded in kind if they had wanted to. They didn't not respond in time because they send a template email, they didn't respond in kind because they chose not to.

They can't respond in kind because that's not allowed as part of the job.

That has nothing to do with what I'm objecting to. I hate it when people say something is 'because' something, when the second thing isn't even a reason! It makes no sense! Its a meaningless statement! You might as well say "because hamburgers"!

 Furyou Miko wrote:
That has nothing to do with what I'm objecting to. I hate it when people say something is 'because' something, when the second thing isn't even a reason! It makes no sense! Its a meaningless statement! You might as well say "because hamburgers"!

They didn't respond in kind because they respond with canned responses whenever they are asked about a certain topic. Clear enough?
This is a forum, not English 101.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
based MWHistorian

Muh.

I will keep the faith.

But I'm not gonna hold my breath, hahahaha.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
That has nothing to do with what I'm objecting to. I hate it when people say something is 'because' something, when the second thing isn't even a reason! It makes no sense! Its a meaningless statement! You might as well say "because hamburgers"!

They didn't respond in kind because they respond with canned responses whenever they are asked about a certain topic. Clear enough?
This is a forum, not English 101.

You write a blog, you wrote a freaking book, you have literally no excuse for unclear communication.

So then the consensus is that they actually have a template for 'Sisters_haven't_been_updated.mail' that gets caught in their email filter with key words like "Sisters, faith, Adepta, Sororitas, Please"?

That makes me irrationally sad to think about, lol.

 Revarien wrote:
So then the consensus is that they actually have a template for 'Sisters_haven't_been_updated.mail' that gets caught in their email filter with key words like "Sisters, faith, Adepta, Sororitas, Please"?

That makes me irrationally sad to think about, lol.

I imagine it is a generic canned response with ARMY NAME to be replaced by whatever the customer is asking about.

Kirby:

"Only after the last armybook has been updated to 8th, only after every original Space Marine legion has a codex, only after every minor faction has been fleshed out with models, only when Squats are the only thing undone, will you have my permission to make Sisters."

 Accolade wrote:
Kirby:

"Only after the last armybook has been updated to 8th, only after every original Space Marine legion has a codex, only after every minor faction has been fleshed out with models, only when Squats are the only thing undone, only when our crops whither, only when our children die piteous deaths, only when the sun is swept from the sky, will you have my permission to make sisters."

Fixed that for you

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
That has nothing to do with what I'm objecting to. I hate it when people say something is 'because' something, when the second thing isn't even a reason! It makes no sense! Its a meaningless statement! You might as well say "because hamburgers"!

They didn't respond in kind because they respond with canned responses whenever they are asked about a certain topic. Clear enough?
This is a forum, not English 101.

You write a blog, you wrote a freaking book, you have literally no excuse for unclear communication.

I don't put the same effort into forum talk as I do books.
And I thought the statement was clear enough for anyone with decent reading comprehension. Thus I used the word "Because." It wasn't a typo.

Anything further, take it to PM.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
Kirby:

"Only after the last armybook has been updated to 8th, only after every original Space Marine legion has a codex, only after every minor faction has been fleshed out with models, only when Squats are the only thing undone, only when our crops whither, only when our children die piteous deaths, only when the sun is swept from the sky, will you have my permission to make sisters."

Fixed that for you

I must admit, that is a much improved statement!

It's those darned plastic sleeves....so difficult...

While I generally consider contacting GW customer support, for anything other than missing and damaged items, fruitless, this was at least insightfully in character and entertaining.

I am sure there are many a GW employee passing around copies of this message and getting a chuckle out of it.

There response is positive, but I always had faith that the God Emperor would not abandon his daughters

 adamsouza wrote:
While I generally consider contacting GW customer support, for anything other than missing and damaged items, fruitless, this was at least insightfully in character and entertaining.

I am sure there are many a GW employee passing around copies of this message and getting a chuckle out of it.

There response is positive, but I always had faith that the God Emperor would not abandon his daughters

You consider canned responses positive? "I love getting the same automatic messages!"
Just a reminder that I got the exact same message before.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
While I generally consider contacting GW customer support, for anything other than missing and damaged items, fruitless, this was at least insightfully in character and entertaining.

I am sure there are many a GW employee passing around copies of this message and getting a chuckle out of it.

There response is positive, but I always had faith that the God Emperor would not abandon his daughters

You consider canned responses positive? "I love getting the same automatic messages!"
Just a reminder that I got the exact same message before.

You sound rather jaded. Let him have his hope. There is a not insignificant chance that sisters of battle are coming sometime in the next 8-14 months, what with 2 separate rumor sets saying that they are done and ready to roll. If not then we deal with that too.

""Hey there,

Thanks for writing in to us, although I don’t have great news for you. While the Adepta Sororitas will no doubt get an update of their codex and miniatures at some point in the future, at this time we don’t know when this will be. However, please be aware that the details of future releases are a closely guarded secret at Games Workshop so new content may be in the works, but we don’t have any specific information yet.

Please keep the faith that they haven’t been forgotten about and their time will come one day!

Games Workshop

North America Customer Services

@MWHistorian - What part of that is not positive ? They could have easily just said "no comment", "we have no information at this time", etc.. Instead they tried to be encouraging, as was I when I replied to the OP's effort.

With GW's currently ridiculous 40K release pace, you would have to be a hard core cynic not to be expecting Adepta Sororitas this edition.

But they did say no comment, we have no information at this time. With a canned response, no less. I don't see how that is a positive sign?

 Torga_DW wrote:
But they did say no comment, we have no information at this time. With a canned response, no less. I don't see how that is a positive sign?

What really makes you think it's a canned response, other than what one person, with a large chip against GW on their shoulder, said? Just because somebody says it's a canned reply doesn't mean it is

Common sense? Businesses that receive high volume repetitive questions tend to develop stock responses. Why should i disbelieve mwhistorian, other than he doesn't drink the koolaid?

I think people are reading what they want out of the message, and not what was actually written. As i said above, people are reading no comment, no info as something other than no comment, no info. Thats a bit of a warning sign to me.

I have sent enough angry emails to GW's customer service that I can assure you that while they must indeed follow some guide ines in composing their responses, that they are not just sending out identicial form letters.

 Bi'ios wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
But they did say no comment, we have no information at this time. With a canned response, no less. I don't see how that is a positive sign?

What really makes you think it's a canned response, other than what one person, with a large chip against GW on their shoulder, said? Just because somebody says it's a canned reply doesn't mean it is

Ah, the old "Don't like GW huh? Well I DON'T LIKE YOU!" comment. Never gets old.

 Bi'ios wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
But they did say no comment, we have no information at this time. With a canned response, no less. I don't see how that is a positive sign?

What really makes you think it's a canned response, other than what one person, with a large chip against GW on their shoulder, said? Just because somebody says it's a canned reply doesn't mean it is

You're calling me a liar now?
I got the same e-mail almost 2 years ago. I've been looking for it, believe me.
They get a question about SOB, they send the same response. That's not a positive sign.

I googled the same phrase. Here's what I got.
http://www.roundtable-bretonnia.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=87&id=157861&catid=2&func=fb_pdf
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/11/sisters-of-battle-keep-faith.html
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/275394-initiative-lets-save-the-nuns/page-2
http://www.miniwargaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=103806&view=previous

Ergo, canned response.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Bi'ios wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
But they did say no comment, we have no information at this time. With a canned response, no less. I don't see how that is a positive sign?

What really makes you think it's a canned response, other than what one person, with a large chip against GW on their shoulder, said? Just because somebody says it's a canned reply doesn't mean it is

You're calling me a liar now?
I got the same e-mail almost 2 years ago. I've been looking for it, believe me.
They get a question about SOB, they send the same response. That's not a positive sign.

I googled the same phrase. Here's what I got.
http://www.roundtable-bretonnia.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=87&id=157861&catid=2&func=fb_pdf
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/11/sisters-of-battle-keep-faith.html
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/275394-initiative-lets-save-the-nuns/page-2
http://www.miniwargaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=103806&view=previous

Ergo, canned response.

Dang, I think you deserve this gif, MWHistorian:

 Accolade wrote:

 Bi'ios wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
But they did say no comment, we have no information at this time. With a canned response, no less. I don't see how that is a positive sign?

What really makes you think it's a canned response, other than what one person, with a large chip against GW on their shoulder, said? Just because somebody says it's a canned reply doesn't mean it is

Ah, the old "Don't like GW huh? Well I DON'T LIKE YOU!" comment. Never gets old.

In no way was that what i said, but if that's what you got from it, more power to you.

What is this "chip" you speak of then? MWHistorian was dead-on right that this was a canned response, and YOUR response was that he has a chip on his shoulder. Maybe you should re-evaluate your response to opinions about 40k that differ from your own.

 Accolade wrote:
What is this "chip" you speak of then? MWHistorian was dead-on right that this was a canned response, and YOUR response was that he has a chip on his shoulder. Maybe you should re-evaluate your response to opinions about 40k that differ from your own.

I'm a "hater" so anything I say can safely be ignored despite any evidence I may present.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Bi'ios wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
But they did say no comment, we have no information at this time. With a canned response, no less. I don't see how that is a positive sign?

What really makes you think it's a canned response, other than what one person, with a large chip against GW on their shoulder, said? Just because somebody says it's a canned reply doesn't mean it is

You're calling me a liar now?
I got the same e-mail almost 2 years ago. I've been looking for it, believe me.
They get a question about SOB, they send the same response. That's not a positive sign.

I googled the same phrase. Here's what I got.
http://www.roundtable-bretonnia.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=87&id=157861&catid=2&func=fb_pdf
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/11/sisters-of-battle-keep-faith.html
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/275394-initiative-lets-save-the-nuns/page-2
http://www.miniwargaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=103806&view=previous

Ergo, canned response.

First off, I didnt call you a liar. I said you have a chip on your shoulder, which I see you haven't refuted. Second, as it goes "that which is put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Now, you have provided some back up to your claim. Good stuff. Perhaps in the future, you can merely link that and say "I believe its a canned reply because of this." Rather than go forth with both barrels. Tact is a thing, and nobody here has hurt or damaged you in any way shape or form, so don't act like it. Good day.

@Accolade, let him fight his own battles. You're all big kids, grow up. I didnt call anybody a "hater", or even mention how I feel about 40k, GW, or anything else for that matter, so don't you dare to presume to tell me how I think or feel about anything. You know nothing about me, or my feelings, thoughts, or ideas.

God forbid, you could JUST have said "you were right, my apologies for attacking your character".

 Accolade wrote:
God forbid, you could JUST have said "you were right, my apologies for attacking your character".

And you could just drop it, because you don't need to fight somebody else's battles