It does come with the caveat that it has been read and approved by the main GW studio development and IP departments.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

You're right the FW stuff isn't designed for tournaments, but it is overseen and approved by GW, and an official part of the canon.

I've nothing against inventing new things for epic that don't tread on the toes of existing stuff, but we should never contradict the existing canon, and that includes FW.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Well technically I'm not contradicting canon, I'm just tweaking the name to make it more palatable and to a lesser extent, formattable

[reducto ad absurdum]So we can rename Space Marines to "Super Soldiers" then?[/reducto ad absurdum]

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I think I am with Dobbsy on this one. FW is a great source of material fleshing out the W40K universe but they are not considering Epic. All they are concerned about is selling lots of their horrendously priced but superbly detailed resin W40k kits.

If FW covers some gaps in the W40k background fluff we should certainly take note of it and perhaps draw inspiration for it. But we don't have to follow it 100.00%. If FW have referred to a particular variant by the role it fulfills (as opposed to it's actual name) then I don't see anything wrong in us using an appropriate name. I would expect in the description text though to have a reference to its role.

Thus calling it a Thunderhawk Interdictor and stating in the description text that it has been configured for Close Air Support, so that it would be clear to the reader what it does.

Cheers

James

Expecto Patronum! No. If they were parenthesised under their description in the Codex then maybe....