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.

Maybe I'm wrong in my lore knowledge but I thought that the Flesh Tearers were specifically prone to falling to the Red Thirst/Black Rage.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong in my lore knowledge but I thought that the Flesh Tearers were specifically prone to falling to the Red Thirst/Black Rage.

The Black Rage doesn't exist in 30K until after Sanginuis' death at the hands of Horus. The "Red Thirst" may have been around during the Horus Heresy, but it was probably in such limited numbers and small displays that no one noticed/cared. The Emperor's Gene Labs were still pumping out Gene Seed for the Legions until the attack on Terra, revolt on Mars, and razing of the labs on Luna.

Fast forward 10,000 years into the future where Sanguinuis' Death still psychicly affects ALL the Blood Angels and eventually manifests into the Black Rage, and 10,000 years of corruption of the Blood Angels' Gene Seed as its recycled and cloned again and again and again means all Blood Angels have some form of the Red Thirst, some more than others (like the Flesh Tearers).

I'm thinking back to the Novel "Fear to Tread" where there are marines who fall to the Red Thirst and have to be hunted down. Then If I'm not mistaken, they start becoming frenzied at the end of the book when they are assaulting that Chaos Monument.

Yes, I remember the Black Rage being linked to Sanguinius' Psychic death scream.

The red thirst was indeed around but super super rare, with those afflicted quickly put down.

"Flesh Tearers" as a whole do not exist, that was a nickname for ONE guy.

Like others have stated, 30K is very akin to historical gaming, so fluff takes precedence. It's not 40k where anything goes. Using another Legion's rules is done purely for advantage as there is no fluff justification for it, period. It's the same as playing Flames of War, and you're playing as America, but want to play them using panzergrenadier rules because "in my head fluff there is this badass ultra ninja company that uses superior tanks and soldiers to the usual army stuff. It's for narrative, I promise!"

Like others have stated, 30K is very akin to historical gaming, so fluff takes precedence. It's not 40k where anything goes. Using another Legion's rules is done purely for advantage as there is no fluff justification for it, period. It's the same as playing Flames of War, and you're playing as America, but want to play them using panzergrenadier rules because "in my head fluff there is this badass ultra ninja company that uses superior tanks and soldiers to the usual army stuff. It's for narrative, I promise!"

Again, I disagree. Counts as does not apply only to people who want a leg up competitively. It's a completely viable way to create a fluffy army.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Like others have stated, 30K is very akin to historical gaming, so fluff takes precedence. It's not 40k where anything goes. Using another Legion's rules is done purely for advantage as there is no fluff justification for it, period. It's the same as playing Flames of War, and you're playing as America, but want to play them using panzergrenadier rules because "in my head fluff there is this badass ultra ninja company that uses superior tanks and soldiers to the usual army stuff. It's for narrative, I promise!"

Again, I disagree. Counts as does not apply only to people who want a leg up competitively. It's a completely viable way to create a fluffy army.

While this is true in 40K, it's not true in 30K. Your army choices are one of the 18 Legions, Black Shields, Solar Auxilia, and Mechanicum. Everything else is not cannon or didn't exist in 30K (yet). Custodies are coming out in Book 7, and an argument could be made that you can make an all Daemon army, but the jury is still out on that one. It's not fluffy to make a Legion that didn't exist in 30K.

Your local meta may be different or even more accepting of such things in 30K. Every 30K tournament I have seen or been to only allows one of the 18 Legions, Solar Auxilia, and Mechanicum. Black Shields were a case by case as it's too easy to abuse the Force Org and units with them.

This is an argument you can't win. Lore wise, the Flesh Terror's didn't exist. They were Blood Angels. And Blood Angels for good or ill, currently have rules in 30K. No, you can't use the rules for one Legion for another. That's a social contract that can only be made between you and your opponent, not you and the interwebz. Wishing for it or wanting it to happen doesn't make it reality.

"Count As" is absolutely, 100% competitive based, as a fluffy army doesn't need rules to make it fluffy. All it needs is a good paint job and story behind it. Rules do not make an army fluffy. Rules make an army competitive.

Lore wise, the Flesh Terror's didn't exist. They were Blood Angels.

Perhaps not, so In this case I will agree that Blood Angels are the correct choice when choosing to represent the 5th company of Blood Angels during the HH.

However.

A fluffy army absolutely needs fluffy rules. How else could you represent Khorne berzerkers on Juggernaughts without Space Wolf Thunderwolves or a Raptor Cult without Blood Angles or Raven Guard. An all Chaos Terminator company without Deathwing etc. The list goes on.

If I decided to run an all Chaos Terminator fist company (prior to the new Legions Book) and chose the Dark Angels to represent them in a modern 40K setting, are you going to say that I'm playing for advantage? Because Terminators a bloody terrible.

Therefore this is an argument you can't win. Wishing for it or wanting to happen doesn't make it a reality.

" Hey man want to have a game?"

"Sure, what army do you play?"

"World Eaters" *sets the up on the board

"Why are they painted red, I thought you played World Eaters"

"I wanted to paint my army red"

^ This is literally what you guys are upset about.

Play blood angels and paint them as the 5th company of the Legion, take the units you feel best fit the theme. Seems straight foreword to me.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Lore wise, the Flesh Terror's didn't exist. They were Blood Angels.

Perhaps not, so In this case I will agree that Blood Angels are the correct choice when choosing to represent the 5th company of Blood Angels during the HH.

Glad we got that sorted.

However.

A fluffy army absolutely needs fluffy rules. How else could you represent Khorne berzerkers on Juggernaughts without Space Wolf Thunderwolves or a Raptor Cult without Blood Angles or Raven Guard. An all Chaos Terminator company without Deathwing etc. The list goes on.

In order to your points:
Are they represented as even existing, or just a concept?
Raptors, especially Night Lord ones are represented well by the new CSM book. No need to dabble in loyalist armies now.
Unbound.

Count as has it's place, but not in any example raised.

If I decided to run an all Chaos Terminator fist company (prior to the new Legions Book) and chose the Dark Angels to represent them in a modern 40K setting, are you going to say that I'm playing for advantage? Because Terminators a bloody terrible.

No. I'd say use Unbound instead, because then you're actually using Chaos Terminators.

Therefore this is an argument you can't win. Wishing for it or wanting to happen doesn't make it a reality.

" Hey man want to have a game?"

"Sure, what army do you play?"

"World Eaters" *sets the up on the board

"Why are they painted red, I thought you played World Eaters"

"I wanted to paint my army red"

^ This is literally what you guys are upset about.

Can't speak for anyone else, but this situation is fine. Hell, it's the basic premise of being able to play your own SM chapter (Chapter Tactics). No, what I have a problem with is not using the actual rules, when they represent what you're trying to play, and using another set and trying to justify it by fluff when it's wrong.

Your example is more like
"Hey, mind if I bring my Flesh Tearers?"
"Sure!"
"But I'll be using World Eater rules."
"Why?"
"I figured that the best way to represent Blood Angels is not with Blood Angel rules, but with another Legion."
"... Yeah."

Again, you are talking about 40K, where you can do pretty much whatever you want.

30K is basically "historical" sci-fi gaming, with specific actors. If you want to play a particular Legion, you use that Legion's rules. As of Inferno, all the Legions will have at least some rules. In any kind of organized event (and they are far more often narrative rather than competitive), this is absolute and no one will allow you to bring anything else.

In more relaxed settings, I've seen various Xenos factions with the AoD CAD to represent the various enemies the Imperium faced during the Crusades, but no one, not even folks who didn't have rules for their Legion, tried to borrow another Legion's rules, units or Primarch.

It was said best above, you do not need rules to represent a fluffy force, just a good paintjob and a story. This is especially true when talking about armies that are more similar than they are different. Borrowing another army's rules in 30K is gamesmanship, pure and simple.

You do realize that you are talking about a fictional setting right? One that, GW itself, has said nothing is really canon.
and 30k and 40k are the same, dont try to pull that gak.
Why does it matter so much to you what someone does for his army? Does it affect you or lesson your enjoyment of the game?

They are not the same, the fact that you don't understand the clear distinction between the two game styles says a lot.

Yes, it does affect and lessen my enjoyment of the game to see people power gaming in a narrative setting that is 30K. I do not allow it in my games, and neither does anyone I game with, and we have a huge 30K community in Texas.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
You do realize that you are talking about a fictional setting right? One that, GW itself, has said nothing is really canon.

It's a game, yes. That doesn't mean that there's no point having a discussion about it.
The "nothing is canon" approach only works if there is conflicting canon. In this issue, the canon states nothing about the BA 5th company being more savage than any other force in the Legion - therefore, that means it is canon, as nothing conflicts.

and 30k and 40k are the same, dont try to pull that gak.

Excuse me, could you point the Unbound rule to me in 30k? Or the different player base? Or the scatbikes, Riptides, and free transport Gladius?
The very fact they have completely different army lists is proof they are not the same.

Why does it matter so much to you what someone does for his army? Does it affect you or lesson your enjoyment of the game?

No, but OP asked a question. I'm answering that question, and justifying that opinion.

If this might affect me IRL, then it would lessen my enjoyment of the game, because my opponent is either trying to get an advantage, or is using an unfluffy army when they claim to be using a fluffy one. The former is self explanatory, the latter is more them being incorrect as to what is *fluffy*. Then again, it's OP's decision. I'm just throwing in my two cents.

I think the term from WW2 wargaming is "rivet counters" - people who go nuts over whether a tank has the proper number of rivets.

Personally, I'd roll with whatever works best for the army. I had considered painting my Alpha Legion purple simply because so many of the forces I've painted for various games have been green or blue. I wouldn't resent someone who felt the same and painted their forces different. Same for rules tbh.

Take your World Eaters if you want them, paint them red. If questioned by someone, explain they are precursor Flesh Tearers, if they have an apoplexy at this, reassure them that you were just kidding and they are latter Heresy World Eaters, covered in gore...

I don't think anyone is saying "you can't paint them that way".

What I'm saying is that, if OP wants to use the rules that suit the 5th Company of the Blood Angels Legion, the rules for the Blood Angels Legion are the most suitable. Nothing about not being able to paint something in a certain way, but rather about gameplay and portraying what they want to portray fluffily.

 ScarletRose wrote:
I think the term from WW2 wargaming is "rivet counters" - people who go nuts over whether a tank has the proper number of rivets.

Personally, I'd roll with whatever works best for the army. I had considered painting my Alpha Legion purple simply because so many of the forces I've painted for various games have been green or blue. I wouldn't resent someone who felt the same and painted their forces different. Same for rules tbh.

I think the rule of cool factor applies here too.

Alpha Legion are kind of a unique case because of the nature of their Legion. But I think most people wouldn't balk at seeing, say, purple AL with the appropriate gear and iconography, maybe with some blue-green spot colors as a nod to the traditional color scheme, etc. Fielding plain, basic, unmarked purple marines as AL (especially if the hue is similar to that of the traditional EC scheme) may get a different reaction from some corners.

Basically if people see that you put thought and effort in, you should get more praise than negativity. And it's important to note that FW tried to build in some flexibility by providing alternate and variant color schemes for many of the Legions in their books. Those are good sources for inspiration for people wanting to try something a little different.

In order to your points:
Are they represented as even existing, or just a concept?
Raptors, especially Night Lord ones are represented well by the new CSM book. No need to dabble in loyalist armies now.
Unbound.

Count as has it's place, but not in any example raised.

If I decided to run an all Chaos Terminator fist company (prior to the new Legions Book) and chose the Dark Angels to represent them in a modern 40K setting, are you going to say that I'm playing for advantage? Because Terminators a bloody terrible.
No. I'd say use Unbound instead, because then you're actually using Chaos Terminators.

Therefore this is an argument you can't win. Wishing for it or wanting to happen doesn't make it a reality.

" Hey man want to have a game?"

"Sure, what army do you play?"

"World Eaters" *sets the up on the board

"Why are they painted red, I thought you played World Eaters"

"I wanted to paint my army red"

^ This is literally what you guys are upset about.
Can't speak for anyone else, but this situation is fine. Hell, it's the basic premise of being able to play your own SM chapter (Chapter Tactics). No, what I have a problem with is not using the actual rules, when they represent what you're trying to play, and using another set and trying to justify it by fluff when it's wrong.

Your example is more like
"Hey, mind if I bring my Flesh Tearers?"
"Sure!"
"But I'll be using World Eater rules."
"Why?"
"I figured that the best way to represent Blood Angels is not with Blood Angel rules, but with another Legion."
"... Yeah."

All my examples were valid. Are you just deciding that they aren't valid to disagree?

Fortunately Chaos Marine players don't have to rely on Loyalist Codex's anymore because of the new legions books. But for 10 years this was not the case.

But I could also argue that playing unbound is seen by many as a way of "power gaming" and "unacceptable" just like your interpretation of "Counts as". So why is one is ok with you but the other isn't?

Again it's literally the same thing as a palette swap. There's no difference. Just because you worded it a certain way doesn't make it something else. A rose by any other name...

They are not the same, the fact that you don't understand the clear distinction between the two game styles says a lot.

They are both made up universes that encourage people to build and play the way they personally want to. It's the exact same thing as painting your army a different colour. The fact that you don't understand that says a lot.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:In order to your points:
Are they represented as even existing, or just a concept?
Raptors, especially Night Lord ones are represented well by the new CSM book. No need to dabble in loyalist armies now.
Unbound.

Count as has it's place, but not in any example raised.

If I decided to run an all Chaos Terminator fist company (prior to the new Legions Book) and chose the Dark Angels to represent them in a modern 40K setting, are you going to say that I'm playing for advantage? Because Terminators a bloody terrible.

No. I'd say use Unbound instead, because then you're actually using Chaos Terminators.

Therefore this is an argument you can't win. Wishing for it or wanting to happen doesn't make it a reality.

" Hey man want to have a game?"

"Sure, what army do you play?"

"World Eaters" *sets the up on the board

"Why are they painted red, I thought you played World Eaters"

"I wanted to paint my army red"

^ This is literally what you guys are upset about.

Can't speak for anyone else, but this situation is fine. Hell, it's the basic premise of being able to play your own SM chapter (Chapter Tactics). No, what I have a problem with is not using the actual rules, when they represent what you're trying to play, and using another set and trying to justify it by fluff when it's wrong.

Your example is more like
"Hey, mind if I bring my Flesh Tearers?"
"Sure!"
"But I'll be using World Eater rules."
"Why?"
"I figured that the best way to represent Blood Angels is not with Blood Angel rules, but with another Legion."
"... Yeah."

All my examples were valid. Are you just deciding that they aren't valid to disagree?

No, I'm saying that those three examples *were* valid.
The TWC Juggernaughts don't even have models, IIRC, and I don't believe I've seen them referenced in GW publications. I could be wrong, and I'm willing to concede this if I see that GW has made reference in game to Berserkers on Juggernaughts. If not, then it's a fan-created unit.

The Raptor Cult is well represented with the new CSM rules. As such, the argument of "X represents Raptors better" is false, because the new Raptor rules do that. Therefore, no need to count as.

An all Terminator list has been possible since the creation of Unbound, without any need to play Deathwing. Any faction with Terminators can use their own codex instead of count-as-ing and using Deathwing. Therefore, the fluff argument doesn't work there either - why would Chaos Terminators be better represented by Deathwing Terminators when the only reason Deathwing are used in this case is because they *'used* to be the only way to get a full Terminator list. Not any more.

Fortunately Chaos Marine players don't have to rely on Loyalist Codex's anymore because of the new legions books. But for 10 years this was not the case.

It's good that I'm arguing about now then, isn't it?
I'm not disputing that CSM had poor options and limited ways to create a fluffy list in the past. But in the present, they have those options, and that's what I'm arguing with.

But I could also argue that playing unbound is seen by many as a way of "power gaming" and "unacceptable" just like your interpretation of "Counts as". So why is one is ok with you but the other isn't?

The rules of the game make no distinction. As far as the game rules are concerned, Unbound is a valid as a CAD and Formations. Anywhere which says otherwise in 40k is a houserule.

Also, where have I said Count As is power gaming? I completely support Count As for fluffy reasons, if the thing being proxied is the most suitable thing to represent the fluff. In this case, and the cases you provide, Count As is not the fluffiest solution, and therefore, I do not support it.

If you're really asking which is more valid, Unbound (an actual game rule) or Count-As (an agreement between players which is in no way guaranteed), I don't really know what to say.

Again it's literally the same thing as a palette swap. There's no difference. Just because you worded it a certain way doesn't make it something else. A rose by any other name...

Not exactly. The exact thing the OP is asking for is "I've been incredibly interested in how I could replicate the legion-era flesh tearers in model form, and if such a thing is actually possible (which it should be by all rights), what would be the best way to go about it?"
Nothing to do with 'I want to use World Eater rules but will paint them Blood Angels'. If that was the case, and either fluff wasn't a concern, or they were the fluffiest solution, that would be 100% fine by me. This is not the case.
Unless I'm sorely mistaken, OP is asking how to represent fluffily, via rules, the 5th Company of Blood Angels. According to fluff presented, the to-be Flesh Tearers were closest to Blood Angels in combat doctrine, and would use the Blood Angel rules.
Nothing to do with paint scheme, nothing even confirming that OP has considered World Eater rules. The only question here is "how do I represent the Flesh Tearers fluffily in 30k?"

They are not the same, the fact that you don't understand the clear distinction between the two game styles says a lot.

They are both made up universes that encourage people to build and play the way they personally want to. It's the exact same thing as painting your army a different colour. The fact that you don't understand that says a lot.

Guess what else is a made up universe which encourages people to build and play the way they want to? AOS. Maelstrom's Edge. The list goes on.

The "army painting" point I addressed above this one.
This isn't about how OP will paint their models. This is about OP asking how best to represent a certain army fluffily. If World Eaters *were* the fluffiest solution, then I'd have no issue doing count as and painting them differently. But because World Eaters are not the fluffiest solution, I do take issue, especially if it's about fluff.

Yeah, this is a really stupid argument. If there are rules, USE THEM. If you don't like them, QQ, they're your rules. If you want to play different between friends, who gives a crap? If you're asking what is fluffy and acceptable by standards, then there is your answer. I modeled my Primus Medicae with a power scythe, but am using it to represent a power axe. Purely for aesthetic, it changes absolutely nothing about the model or its rules (you can't take a scythe on a PM). Its really not hard to distinguish "rule of cool" and "i'm changing the rules to support my purposes and gain a tactical advantage, because I feel this special unit should have it" - for that matter, I think my Deathshroud should be gnarlier in close combat, i'll just go ahead and treat them as WS5, because Mortarion's personal guard SHOULD have a better weapon skill, after all.

OP, as for you - find some depictions of the flesh tearer and point out something specific aesthetically about him; make a 5th company of BAs and add that little bit of specificity to each of them, too. It will make them look like his crew and you can keep using your BA rules for them. Problem solved?

 ScarletRose wrote:
I think the term from WW2 wargaming is "rivet counters" - people who go nuts over whether a tank has the proper number of rivets.

Personally, I'd roll with whatever works best for the army. I had considered painting my Alpha Legion purple simply because so many of the forces I've painted for various games have been green or blue. I wouldn't resent someone who felt the same and painted their forces different. Same for rules tbh.

Terrible example, no one would care if you wanted to paint your Alpha Legion purple. But if you painted them like My Little Pony, door is that way.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The TWC Juggernaughts don't even have models, IIRC, and I don't believe I've seen them referenced in GW publications. I could be wrong, and I'm willing to concede this if I see that GW has made reference in game to Berserkers on Juggernaughts. If not, then it's a fan-created unit.

Champions riding juggernauts have been around since Chaos was first concocted. It's hardly a leap, particularly considering the bloodletter and WHFB chaos knight cavalry versions.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The TWC Juggernaughts don't even have models, IIRC, and I don't believe I've seen them referenced in GW publications. I could be wrong, and I'm willing to concede this if I see that GW has made reference in game to Berserkers on Juggernaughts. If not, then it's a fan-created unit.

Champions riding juggernauts have been around since Chaos was first concocted. It's hardly a leap, particularly considering the bloodletter and WHFB chaos knight cavalry versions.

Really? Squads of Berserkers on Juggernauts had rules?

I knew that Lords and such could take mounts, but whole squads? Could you cite a codex or supplement please?

The precedents of RT forces of nothing but personalities on juggernauts, 3rd edition veteran retinues of aspiring champions on juggernauts and more importantly the Bloodcrusher and Skullcrusher units mean that units of marines on juggernauts are not enough of a leap to refer to as a "fan-created unit". To demand that I point to a specific unit entry called "Berzerkers on juggernauts" is wilfully obtuse.

Rosebuddy wrote:
The precedents of RT forces of nothing but personalities on juggernauts, 3rd edition veteran retinues of aspiring champions on juggernauts and more importantly the Bloodcrusher and Skullcrusher units mean that units of marines on juggernauts are not enough of a leap to refer to as a "fan-created unit". To demand that I point to a specific unit entry called "Berzerkers on juggernauts" is wilfully obtuse.

Rogue Trader is also the same edition where a chief UM Librarian is a half-Eldar. Not exactly up-to-date.

There were units made up solely of Berserkers on Juggernaughts in 3rd?

Bloodcrushers and Skullcrushers are not Berserkers on Juggernaughts. Just because a Bloodletter can sit on the back, that's not enough reason, unless I can now equip all my marines in my tactical squads with jump packs and retain their bolters. Same philosophy - it's possible to model it, but if you're making a model which doesn't fit into any options your army has, it's a fan created unit. That's not necessarily bad, mind.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Your example is more like
"Hey, mind if I bring my Flesh Tearers?"
"Sure!"
"But I'll be using World Eater rules."
"Why?"
"I figured that the best way to represent Blood Angels is not with Blood Angel rules, but with another Legion."
"... Yeah."

There's literally nothing wrong with this.

Everything is wrong with it, Warhammer 30K is a game with a set background and set actors, not "whatever you imagine"-land on 40K.

 SeraphimXIX wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Your example is more like
"Hey, mind if I bring my Flesh Tearers?"
"Sure!"
"But I'll be using World Eater rules."
"Why?"
"I figured that the best way to represent Blood Angels is not with Blood Angel rules, but with another Legion."
"... Yeah."

There's literally nothing wrong with this.

Except this is Warhammer 30K, about as close to historical gaming as you can get in the Warhammer Universe. There were no Chapters in 30K. There were Legions. And when I look around in the 30K rule books, I see no Legion called "Flesh Tearers".

If you want to play an army in 30K using World Eaters rules, then you play World Eaters. If you want to play Blood Angels, then you use Blood Angel rules. If you want to play Flesh Tearers, then you should play 40K. Pretty simple if you ask me.

The shear amount of backlash over "I should be able to play what I want!" is very telling of the state of 40K right now, where, yeah, you can play whatever you want. But this isn't 40K with Forge World models. This is 30K, a game with it's own books, models, and rules that just happens to use the same rule set as Warhammer 40K. And in 30K, there are the 18 Legions, Mechanicum, Solar Auxilia, Knight Houses, and soon to be released Custodes. Those are your choices. If you don't like it, then don't play 30K. Go play 40K instead. You'll probably enjoy it much more then playing with the "historical players" of 30K.

There were no Chapters in 30K

I'll take "Who were the Serrated Suns" for $200 Alex

And in 30K, there are the 18 Legions, Mechanicum, Solar Auxilia, Knight Houses, and soon to be released Custodes. Those are your choices. If you don't like it, then don't play 30K

The entire point of things like Rites of War, shattered legion and blackshield forces and hell even the lost legions has been to allow players to create niche forces based on what they want to play.

I mean I get being scared other people are in the secret clubhouse, but really there's a pretty broad area for people to choose from.

SeraphimXIX wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Your example is more like
"Hey, mind if I bring my Flesh Tearers?"
"Sure!"
"But I'll be using World Eater rules."
"Why?"
"I figured that the best way to represent Blood Angels is not with Blood Angel rules, but with another Legion."
"... Yeah."

There's literally nothing wrong with this.

Let's replace all mention of Flesh Tearers with what they actually are, for all fluff purposes - Blood Angels.

"Hey, mind if I bring my Blood Angels?"
"Sure!"
"But I'll be using World Eater rules."
"Why?"
"I figured that the best way to represent Blood Angels is not with Blood Angel rules, but with another Legion."
"... Yeah."

If you can't see why it's completely unfluffy to use another Legion's rules instead of the actual Legion's rules, I can't really help. Especially when the OP is trying to do the fluffiest approach. Why would the fluffiest approach be to use a whole other Legion's rules?