I know there are reasons given for 'tulpae' in the FAQ. I know it's been discussed a lot. But I really think that 'tulpae' is wrong, both objectively and in the image that it creates.

The ending of any remaining English words ending in 'ae' - because they're from Latin is pronounced as ē, or 'ee' as in 'bee'. I don't see how this is easier to pronounce than 'tulpas'.

From a grammatical standpoint it makes no sense. As precedent, take 'lama' and 'sherpa', both originally Tibetan words. They pluralise to 'lamas' and 'sherpas' respectively. 'Tulpas' makes the most sense as a plural in that aspect.
Even if there were no precedent, it would still be obvious. Words imported are either given a suffix from the original language or the recipient language, never a third. By giving a Tibetan word a Latin plural when using it in English, you're coming off as pretentious.

It's even worse when you use the ash with 'tulpæ'. It was medieval practice to write Latin like that. Classical and modern practice is to use 'ae'. Modern words ending in 'ae' have no ash: tulpæ is very wrong.

Separating tulpas here from tulpas on Wikipedia is needless - most people view Wikipedia as pretty credible, and any mention is beneficial - and fruitless - no-one is going to look at the plural and think "Oh, it's a different thing".
In image terms, what it does to is look bad. To those educated enough to know where you've butchered the language - a large portion of the scientific community - you look stupid.