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.

Synapse is most mostly a determinet to your Nids now. You now have a good chance of seeing your army implode from the loss of a few key units

Less choice in regards to powers and warlord traits

Loss of a number of popular units ex. Ygmarl Genestealers, Doom of Malintai

What did the army gain to make up for all this? Not much.

Cruddace'd again.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I wonder, I wonder I wonder...

Could it be that this codex has been intentionally rendered bland in order to produce several colorful and 'winning' codex supplements for hive fleets?

You need the codex plus the codex supplement to run one of those armies, whereas just running the main codex army just requires the main book. If the 'codex: hive fleet toadballs' is really full of bells and whistles, then all the nid players will rush to buy it and the codex... Double yer money! Perhaps that's where all the booty's hidden! In the specialized codex supplements following.

Not normally a conspiracy theorists....but you may have a point here. **shudder**

my apologies dakka dakka. I must say this just one more time.
THEY fething KILLED MY fething TIE-UP TERMIANTORS FOR HALF A GAME, RIPPER gaking, DAEMON PRINCE KILLING, fething 62 DOLLARS PARASITE OF MORTREX, AND fething REPLACED IT FOR AN UGLY ASSED PEICE OF gak OVERGROWN WORM.


at least mawlocs are worth it now, if you take a trygon prime to keep synapse.

There have been several recent self-destruction trends within GW HQ. And this is the first Codex where all these trends led to the obvious and complete invalidation of an army:

1.) Managers with no idea of the game and the hobby took over all power. People in the studio familiar with the game and hobby have no say anymore. Everything is subjugated to simplistic ideas of how to make short-time cash that work so well among investment bankers. Therefore a product that just doesn't work was released "to save money", before essential fixes could be made.

2.) Feedback loops within the company were cut off, until no game designer wanted to be responsible for this product and an "Alan Smithee" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee was credited as author. Maybe some of the arbitrary point changes (rippers, Tyranid Prime) are a silent protest and cry for help that can easily sneak past the managers but are obvious to everyone playing the game.

3.) GW managers have a pathological hate for second markets, with Chapterhouse the most hated target.They still think that second markets are illegal per se and do not understand why their lawsuit doesn't run so well. So they decided that 4 of the 5 units without models won't get any model at all and are deleted completely, to punish Chapterhouse and every Tyranid gamer. House detention and no breakfast for being naughty.

4.) GW bean counters said that low run models don't reap enough profit and metal and finecast products should be discontinued completely. Tyranids missed 2 character models and maybe an Ymgarl conversion set. Those could only be done as low run products. Another reason to delete those units whatever the consequences for gameplay.

5.) For the last 4 years, adding a flyer or recently an Apocalypse unit (Riptide, Wraithknight, Escalation) was enough to give new Codices an edge over older ones. Tyranids already got flyers and the biggest monstrous creature with their last Codex, so the easy fix was already done. Designers got no time or motivation or whatever to work on a real new Codex with new ideas. The old Cruddace Codex was full of new ideas, but obviously the management stopped this trend for so called economic reasons (see 3 and 4).

6.) As Tim Kirby said in the recent annual Report:"We value people’s attitudes and behaviour even higher than their knowledge and skills". Maybe GW hired too many incompetent people just because those were yes-men. Maybe too many competent people left the company, voluntarily or not. The Tyranid Codex is a rushed and inferior product with obvious flaws. Could be that GW is not able anymore to make a good product even without a management hindering them to do their job.

Now quality deterioration has reached a new low, with a Codex released that just doesn't work, doesn't inspire and will make customers rethink preordering new stuff blindly "because it can't be that bad and will certainly work out somehow". Give it a month to settle, and this trust is gone.

Management has systematically killed all feedback loops and lives in their own dreamworld, where doubling prices and not talking to anybody is the solution to every problem. There is no easy way to change the company dynamics to a prospering one, because it involves getting rid of the current allmighty management, including CEO and chair and major shareholder Tim Kirby.

Management destroyed the LOTR/Hobbit game. Management destroyed Warhammer Fantasy. Now their new challenge is to make 40k unattractive and unplayable. Apocalypse units in regular games and the Tyranid Codex are a "promising" step in that direction.

Iron_Captain wrote:Just wait until all the initial silly nerdrage calms down, then have a good look and make a decision for yourself.

lobbywatson wrote:Maybe they should play a couple 20 games or so before boycotting....

riburn3 wrote:So much doom and gloom by people that are yet to play a match or build a list. This is almost an identical repeat to the Eldar release and all the crying that caused in the first week or two.

4 units were deleted from the Codex. How will that change their performance in gameplay? Too early to say, let's wait a month of playtesting

 Kroothawk wrote:


2.) Feedback loops within the company were cut off, until no game designer wanted to be responsible for this product and an "Alan Smithee" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee was credited as author.

I agree with your post, and this here not only makes sense but would be funny as hell. Cruddace is sitting at home reading these threads like... "goddamit what did I do? I don't even have to work on the Tyranid codex and they all blame me for it!". Although, he did co-sign it in the WD with his Tyranids interview, and he gave us the 5E that this book was built off, so meh he deserves it.

riburn3 wrote:So much doom and gloom by people that are yet to play a match or build a list. This is almost an identical repeat to the Eldar release and all the crying that caused in the first week or two.

The happenings of now have almost nothing in common with the events that took place proceeding the Eldar list. They had a new codex and failed to see its strengths. That wasn't for 2 weeks following the release either - by release it was all but the most ignorant and worst players who had come around to accept that their new dex was very playable. This is the opposite to whats happening here, we weren't given new rules to playtest, we had models taken out, with very new rules added. Where is our Supporting Fire? Everyone already knows this dex back to front. This release is seeing tons of backlash throughout every 40k community, people returning bulk purchases, the release being heralded as the worst yet by GW. Playtesting won't change a thing - if we even become the best army in 40k somehow with this codex, this would not make it a good dex - its built around restrictive gameplay and lacks options from the last dex., even if we have had some points reductions to certain models.

I feel like a lot of people saying "playtest the dex before judging it" don't really have any experience with Nids what so ever.

I certainly won't be buying the new codex.
Because I don't play 'Nids.

I "love" the new IB rules. I'm part of a campaign that is doing Kill Teams. I can either take a full assault army. Or have my army run off the board turn 1. Decisions, decisions...

I have to say, I'm rather shocked at this book. It's awful. Just across the board awful. None of the design changes make any sense or seem to have been done to conform to the 6E ruleset. Lots of it basically just seems like arbitrary changes made for their own sake. I don't understand how they let this out the door as it is.

I thought CSM's were bad...the poor Tyranids got the same but even worse. This would not seem to bode well for the Imperial Guard given they were done by the same author last time around and GW seems to be in the business of "abritrarily different, but largely the same" with some of these books.

Waaaghpower wrote:
I certainly won't be buying the new codex.
Because I don't play 'Nids.

So why are you here?

 the shrouded lord wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
I certainly won't be buying the new codex.
Because I don't play 'Nids.

So why are you here?

To smirk at the poor, misguided Xenos players... And then remember that I play Sisters of Battle, and weep sympathetic tears.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I have to say, I'm rather shocked at this book. It's awful. Just across the board awful. None of the design changes make any sense or seem to have been done to conform to the 6E ruleset. Lots of it basically just seems like arbitrary changes made for their own sake. I don't understand how they let this out the door as it is.

I thought CSM's were bad...the poor Tyranids got the same but even worse. This would not seem to bode well for the Imperial Guard given they were done by the same author last time around and GW seems to be in the business of "abritrarily different, but largely the same" with some of these books.

Totally agree. I think I is one of the bottom 3 codex in terms of relative competitiveness, perhaps the worst in terms of design.

However, I don't think there anything we can infer about future codex from this one, aside from the fact that the Tyranids have widened the gap of what's possible by presenting a new low.

 AesSedai wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I have to say, I'm rather shocked at this book. It's awful. Just across the board awful. None of the design changes make any sense or seem to have been done to conform to the 6E ruleset. Lots of it basically just seems like arbitrary changes made for their own sake. I don't understand how they let this out the door as it is.

I thought CSM's were bad...the poor Tyranids got the same but even worse. This would not seem to bode well for the Imperial Guard given they were done by the same author last time around and GW seems to be in the business of "abritrarily different, but largely the same" with some of these books.

Totally agree. I think I is one of the bottom 3 codex in terms of relative competitiveness, perhaps the worst in terms of design.

However, I don't think there anything we can infer about future codex from this one, aside from the fact that the Tyranids have widened the gap of what's possible by presenting a new low.

I agree. The last few codecies, even though overpowered a bit, showed us that complete overhauls were not only possible, but probable. To see the exact opposite happen with the Tyranid codex was just jarring.

I never fielded Tervigons, so my personal Tyranid lists most likely got better (or cheaper, at the very least), but with so many people playing the Tervigon swarm list, and for GW to hit that build with such a nerf bat, it's pretty shocking...

 Kroothawk wrote:
4 units were deleted from the Codex. How will that change their performance in gameplay? Too early to say, let's wait a month of playtesting

Ouch! Direct hit there Kroot.

 Kroothawk wrote:


4.) GW bean counters said that low run models don't reap enough profit and metal and finecast products should be discontinued completely. Tyranids missed 2 character models and maybe an Ymgarl conversion set. Those could only be done as low run products. Another reason to delete those units whatever the consequences for gameplay.

Was thinking the exact same thing about unique characters. Although this is complete conjecture, I think we're going to see less and less each codex as, being 'unique', by definition are only going to ever need one. Sisters lost aSC [which brought us down to a grand total of two]. Although I think this was largely because of low stock of Kyrinov, there was no attempt to replace him.

I think going forwards, where possible, there are going to be more of the Carnifex style kits, i.e. the option to make the special character out of the 'normal' kit, which forces you to buy more of the bigger, more expensive kit to get your SC.

Makes sense from a business point of view, but disappointing from a gaming/collecting point of view. I love special characters, to me they're what gives the army its flavour. Eldar managed to keep 9 SCs, seems as though Phil Kelly pulls more weight than the others.

I think it's kind of telling when most of the good lists you can make with this codex, excluding carnifexes, were actually just better in the last codex.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ouch! Direct hit there Kroot.

Does some of my analysis also make sense to you? Or do you still think this is unfounded sarcasm by a blind GW hater (with a long Tyranid blog) that should be ignored?

BTW I think it should become common practice for all tournament organizers, to allow Tyranid players to chose between old and new Codex. This is only fair and would also send a message to GW that there is a limit to how bad a Codex can get.

 Voidwraith wrote:

 AesSedai wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I have to say, I'm rather shocked at this book. It's awful. Just across the board awful. None of the design changes make any sense or seem to have been done to conform to the 6E ruleset. Lots of it basically just seems like arbitrary changes made for their own sake. I don't understand how they let this out the door as it is.

I thought CSM's were bad...the poor Tyranids got the same but even worse. This would not seem to bode well for the Imperial Guard given they were done by the same author last time around and GW seems to be in the business of "abritrarily different, but largely the same" with some of these books.

Totally agree. I think I is one of the bottom 3 codex in terms of relative competitiveness, perhaps the worst in terms of design.

However, I don't think there anything we can infer about future codex from this one, aside from the fact that the Tyranids have widened the gap of what's possible by presenting a new low.

I agree. The last few codecies, even though overpowered a bit, showed us that complete overhauls were not only possible, but probable. To see the exact opposite happen with the Tyranid codex was just jarring.

I never fielded Tervigons, so my personal Tyranid lists most likely got better (or cheaper, at the very least), but with so many people playing the Tervigon swarm list, and for GW to hit that build with such a nerf bat, it's pretty shocking...

Out of interest, what list were you running that you think has gotten better?

I wouldn't mind losing special units, if normal units had more viable options. Look at the Hive Tyrant, every list anyone has proposed seems to run two identical flying double-devourer tyrants. This is boring. I can't understand why they removed Armoured Shell, as without it walking tyrants are dead. A good codex is not only competitive (which this book isn't), it also allows people to built their armies in multiple different ways without gimping themselves. (In this regard I think Marines have the best 6e codex.)

riburn3 wrote:So much doom and gloom by people that are yet to play a match or build a list. This is almost an identical repeat to the Eldar release and all the crying that caused in the first week or two.

Seriously? Most of the "doom and gloom" of a new Codex release revolves around 1) "Wahhhh, my old list has to change now because the units aren't the same!" (eg, Eldar, Black Templar) or 2) "Wahhhh, they changed the style and I don't like it anymore!" (eg, Necrons, Tau). This isn't the case with Nids - they simply did not change the things that were broken, and merely nerfed the gak out of the things that actually worked before... which is really bad, because while our mainstays made for bland list building, at least they could hold their own. Now nearly everything sucks, so... hooray? Nids might actually be the worst army in the game now, and I don't say that as an exaggeration. I was going to buy this book, but there's no way I'm spending $60 on a worse product than what we already had.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Does some of my analysis also make sense to you?

I said it was a direct hit, because it was a direct hit. You couldn't be more right if you tried.

Wow. Seriously everybody putting have on the new codex needs to wake up. It's been out for one day and lots of people are writing it off as the worst codex and a "rushed job" if you don't like the rules then don't but the codex or the models, it's simple and you can go play another game like magic the gathering and bitch about how bad their new releases are.

 Lobukia wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
Flyrant, biovore, fex lists with some fast flyers will be winning/placing in tourneys in a few months. Then so many can feel silly.

You fail to understand the problem. Nids can and will win, but we went from one Monobuild to a different monobuild. There is even more limited variety now.

What codex has more than 2 truly viable tourney builds?

Tournament, most of them.

Really?

Chaos Marines, maybe two
Daemons, again maybe two
DA.... moving on
Eldar, 2
DE, as an ally, 1
GK, with inquisition out, it's not even an ally
Crons, maybe maybe two
Tau, 2
SM, what besides bikes?
BA...
SW great ally
Orks, the occasional meta bust
IG, 2 and one heavily leans on allies

I'm sure I've left someone out. But if looking at having a chance at top ten-ish finish Nids might be the only thing that reliably can bring down an up and running 2++, can make riptides quake in fear, and can put an awesome shooting/CC platform out in mass (hello dakkafex).

This list shows your limited experience in tournaments. Perhaps you should go read some of the Batreps of people going to the higher tier tournaments. You will see how limited your list is. Simply having Allies makes numerous competitive combos.

 Kroothawk wrote:

2.) Feedback loops within the company were cut off, until no game designer wanted to be responsible for this product and an "Alan Smithee" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee was credited as author. Maybe some of the arbitrary point changes (rippers, Tyranid Prime) are a silent protest and cry for help that can easily sneak past the managers but are obvious to everyone playing the game.

I'm going to offer another possible angle on this:

It could also represent a shift in policy from the game designers due to getting hatemail and endless meme punishment from the online gaming community, I do know from talking to someone quite relevant, that the amount of flak certain design team staff have received for poorly received codex writing has left them virtually unable to use social media or enjoy gaming forums like this one.

The choice to not put a single name on this codex may reflect the decision to stop giving the baying hordes a single target to blame for what they believe is bad background writing, rules, naming choices etc. It must be pretty disheartening to land a great job creating fun stuff for games and playing with toy soldiers all day and then discover you've become an internet meme with (in some cases) really hate-filled stuff, just because you called something a spleen missile or a wolf shield or whatever.

It's been 20 years since Nagash was sculpted, but Gary Morley still gets hauled over the coals for it multiple times a year in threads with 'worst model' when he's already given reason for it's appearance and produced many excellent models in the meanwhile and many of GW's best sculptors leaned their skills from him. But still some spankers chortle and drag the bones of a very long dead horse out to beat it, again and again, ad nauseum, to punish a decent bloke and a good sculptor for making something his bosses told him to make, to the point where he got so sick of it he had to go onto a forum and defend himself.

Perhaps the designers just got sick of seeing their name blasted online, or someone willing them to die for writing something they didn't like, and decided to put this 'design team' up instead.



(PS: GW, bring back Nagash and bring Morley back in and let him sculpt it as he wants to, so we can put that to bed finally. )

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

2.) Feedback loops within the company were cut off, until no game designer wanted to be responsible for this product and an "Alan Smithee" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee was credited as author. Maybe some of the arbitrary point changes (rippers, Tyranid Prime) are a silent protest and cry for help that can easily sneak past the managers but are obvious to everyone playing the game.

I'm going to offer another possible angle on this:

It could also represent a shift in policy from the game designers due to getting hatemail and endless meme punishment from the online gaming community, I do know from talking to someone quite relevant, that the amount of flak certain design team staff have received for poorly received codex writing has left them virtually unable to use social media or enjoy gaming forums like this one.

The choice to not put a single name on this codex may reflect the decision to stop giving the baying hordes a single target to blame for what they believe is bad background writing, rules, naming choices etc. It must be pretty disheartening to land a great job creating fun stuff for games and playing with toy soldiers all day and then discover you've become an internet meme with (in some cases) really hate-filled stuff, just because you called something a spleen missile or a wolf shield or whatever.

It's been 20 years since Nagash was sculpted, but Gary Morley still gets hauled over the coals for it multiple times a year in threads with 'worst model' when he's already given reason for it's appearance and produced many excellent models in the meanwhile and many of GW's best sculptors leaned their skills from him. But still some spankers chortle and drag the bones of a very long dead horse out to beat it, again and again, ad nauseum, to punish a decent bloke and a good sculptor for making something his bosses told him to make, to the point where he got so sick of it he had to go onto a forum and defend himself.

Perhaps the designers just got sick of seeing their name blasted online, or someone willing them to die for writing something they didn't like, and decided to put this 'design team' up instead.



(PS: GW, bring back Nagash and bring Morley back in and let him sculpt it as he wants to, so we can put that to bed finally. )

^ This is more reasonable.

I'm sure that Ward wouldn't be too happy if he read 1d4chan's page on him (he probably has as well)

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


I'd believe it, you've got cruddnce's point costs, Kelly's random tables, Kelly's love of odd artifacts that require killing to activate, and Kelly's every other turn nonsense in melee. With a few confusing Ward text like the Pyrovore's explosive hits all units bomb.

Ha! Pretty much!

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


The choice to not put a single name on this codex may reflect the decision to stop giving the baying hordes a single target to blame for what they believe is bad background writing, rules, naming choices etc. It must be pretty disheartening to land a great job creating fun stuff for games and playing with toy soldiers all day and then discover you've become an internet meme with (in some cases) really hate-filled stuff, just because you called something a spleen missile or a wolf shield or whatever.

Perhaps the designers just got sick of seeing their name blasted online, or someone willing them to die for writing something they didn't like, and decided to put this 'design team' up instead.

I assume we're talking Matt Ward. The 'hate' that he gets is based upon a complete lack of regard for internal or external balance. The silly names he gives to items just provides extra flavour to the criticism about his ability to write a well thought out codex.

I also think you're misrepresenting the Dakka community [who are also GW customers with the right to express their opinion about their products]. When the latest Dark Eldar dex came out I can't remember seeing anything but praise for a competitive [but not overpowered], well thought out codex which provided the opportunity to create lots of viable builds. Most people also seem to be very happy with the Eldar codex [although it is perhaps too strong in comparison].

When they get it right, there is lots of praise, but when they get it wrong, lots of criticism. Which is as it should be.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


The choice to not put a single name on this codex may reflect the decision to stop giving the baying hordes a single target to blame for what they believe is bad background writing, rules, naming choices etc. It must be pretty disheartening to land a great job creating fun stuff for games and playing with toy soldiers all day and then discover you've become an internet meme with (in some cases) really hate-filled stuff, just because you called something a spleen missile or a wolf shield or whatever.

Perhaps the designers just got sick of seeing their name blasted online, or someone willing them to die for writing something they didn't like, and decided to put this 'design team' up instead.

I assume we're talking Matt Ward. The 'hate' that he gets is based upon a complete lack of regard for internal or external balance. The silly names he gives to items just provides extra flavour to the criticism about his ability to write a well thought out codex.

I also think you're misrepresenting the Dakka community [who are also GW customers with the right to express their opinion about their products]. When the latest Dark Eldar dex came out I can't remember seeing anything but praise for a competitive [but not overpowered], well thought out codex which provided the opportunity to create lots of viable builds. Most people also seem to be very happy with the Eldar codex [although it is perhaps too strong in comparison].

When they get it right, there is lots of praise, but when they get it wrong, lots of criticism. Which is as it should be.

There's criticism, and then there's this, from 1d4chan :

"Because he's an idiot, a fething powergamer trying to overcome Phil Kelly in codex-writing (HA!), and assumes that we are also idiots. He keeps up the fine tradition (started with Jervis Johnson) of trying to make his pet projects the prettiest and most special. His stupid isn't OUR sort of stupid, so we hate him."

I admit that I don't like his style that much either, but sweet christ. There's construction criticism, and there's being hostile. This fits into the latter.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

I assume we're talking Matt Ward. The 'hate' that he gets is based upon a complete lack of regard for internal or external balance. The silly names he gives to items just provides extra flavour to the criticism about his ability to write a well thought out codex.

Ward is certainly the cause celebre, but it's a spinning wheel, as each codex crops up and then each writer gets to go on the wheel of popularity, I've seen fairly hostile things directed at Cruddace, Thorpe, Hoare, Johnson, Kelly etc. You need to distinguish between criticism of the writing and the calls for these people to suffer horrible fates or just infantile and ridiculous name calling, for their 'sins' of book writing and rules creation. I've certainly stated clear criticism of what's not good, in my opinion, in a book, and then moved on, but some folks just don't stop endlessly harping on and being offensive and hostile into the bargin. As I said, certain of the writers have had hateful messages sent to their facebook pages and elsewhere, deeply hostile and offensive stuff. That isn't on.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

I also think you're misrepresenting the Dakka community [who are also GW customers with the right to express their opinion about their products].

I think you're taking my comments, incorrectly, as personally directed to the Dakka community, of which I am a part and have been for some time. There are elements on 'the internet', in all it's wargaming areas and as I said, beyond into social media, that don't get the difference between criticism of product, as a customer with the right to do so, and being an offensive gak. Willing someone to die, calling them unpleasant names and so on isn't expressing opinion on product.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

When the latest Dark Eldar dex came out I can't remember seeing anything but praise for a competitive [but not overpowered], well thought out codex which provided the opportunity to create lots of viable builds. Most people also seem to be very happy with the Eldar codex [although it is perhaps too strong in comparison].

When they get it right, there is lots of praise, but when they get it wrong, lots of criticism. Which is as it should be.

Lots of people without Eldar are very ready to cite the Eldar codex as overpowered, broken and otherwise too strong. Again, that's criticism and again, that's fair, customers do get to say what they want about the product. Again, you have chosen to read my post and construe that I said noone can criticize product, I did not say that, I am reasonably known on this forum for being critical of the product... But, again, the levels to which some have chosen to behave and post and tell another human being, over a game of toy soldiers, have exceeded decent and reasoned behavior.

And so I offered another explanation for the removal of the single name as writer, to remove the target for those few people who want to send some really vile stuff to a guy who wrote a book wrong, in their opinion, and remove a target for the many who'd lampoon that individual to the extent of spam.

Criticism, citing a rationale problem with a product, is one thing. Calling for someone to suffer some calamity or using some very unpleasant insult or indeed wanting them to die, over their writing skills, in the opinion of the reader, is quite another.

Behold:
https://www.facebook.com/killmattward

Ok, a Facebook page with 14 likes is essentially non-existent.

 jifel wrote:
Ok, a Facebook page with 14 likes is essentially non-existent.

No, it quite clearly exists, as do the private messages sent to writers, as do the everyday throwaway comments made by people that are childish, vicious, hostile, admittedly often made by people who would never be so unpleasant face to face, but seemingly under the impression that they won't be read by their target or that their target is some fictional character who doesn't get insulted or pissed off by them.

It's a small community, these comments are seen.

Anyway, mine was just a theory for an alternative reason for the name being removed from the codex, as opposed to Kroot's suggestion that noone wanted to put their name on it out of shame of the contents being forced on them by upper management, in the absence of any official statements from a GW writer or leak, you are free to come to your own conclusions.