If the studio as a whole thought it was somrthing that needed to be changed, don't you think it would have been in the actual FAQ? "The Studio" is more than just one guy, and they certainly know how to make us aware of their opinions on the rules...it's called an official FAQ. If it ain;t in the official FAQ, then the studio doesn't think it needs fixing.
Hell, for all we know, even he changed his mind on the issue. Have you heard anything from him recently about it? Even if he still thinks it needs to be fixed, it;s obvious the other designers don't.
And just because some scrub from the GW boards copy and pasted an unofficial, outdated FAQ that GW saw fit to delete, doesn't make it valid.
It just means some people can't handle the fact that they;re wrong and insist on pissing on someone else's parade when they decide to make an interesting new model that conforms with the rules.
Ummm, you DO know that Pete no longer works at GW, right? Could that be why we haven't heard any more from him? As for why the others hadn't (haven't) said anything, maybe they collaberated with Pete and he was merely the one who responded to the forum. I do know that other members of the studio did respond to the FAQs there on occasion, so that does seem to be a logical assumption, ie that "his" answer was "their" answer. Maybe they don't think it needs to be addressed because they AGREE with him. Lack of an additional response is seldom construed as disagreement. As for the "official" FAQs, yeah, let's see, how long did it take just to get the partial FAQ on the main rulebook. Couple of years? Please forgive me if I don't hold my breath. And no, I'm not trying to "piss on someone else's parade", I'm trying to afford someone the opportunity to make an informed choice. It's called presenting both sides of an argument.
Nope, never said it was "official". But what it is, is a statement of the rules writers intent. To me, that makes it those who want to ignore that intent to be the, how did you put it, oh yes, unable to handle the fact that they're wrong............
Now I did state earlier that yes, by RAW, it's legal. Yet, GWs FAQs frequently modify RAW. Witness the Tyranid instakill/synapse debacle where they actually posted an FAQ and then within 24 hours, changed it. The first one agreed with RAW in the codex, the changed one did not. I'm sure if we look, we could find several dozen similar examples where FAQs, whether "official" or the unofficial 'intent' FAQs that we have available to us from the old GW forums disagree with RAW.
Bottom line, you want to do it and have your "interesting new model", go for it. But we do know the studio's stated intent and I for one am not going to waste time and effort on a model that will likely be deemed illegal in an FAQ or by GW tourney organizers. I've had enough of that happen with regular codex changes outlawing my converssions and even standard models. As for the Techmarine with whatever, I know that if questioned it would not have been allowed at the Baltimore Games Day tourney last year based on the GW forum FAQ. And I'm willing to bet that will be so again this year, especially if they have me run it again................. for the 4th time.