Counts-As: Your own thoughts on the matter, and when it gets taken too far?

[Cuddy]

I don't have a problem with number one, 40K is expensive, so it can take a long time between when you decide to start playing a new army and when you finish it. I think the game as a whole is more fun when every player can try out the new codex or whatever, rather then just one faction being excited about it. I do see how it could be abused heavily by a powergamer though.

On a related note, what about a different version of type 1 where the models are still from the same army? Ie. "these unconverted ork boys 'count as' tankbustas"?

[kargie]

I'm OK with all levels, though obviously far prefer 2 or 3.
1 is more situational--if it is someone new to an army, I'm fine with proxies as long as I know what's going on. I'd rather have a model that doesn't fit than a piece of paper in the shape with a name on it.
With people I regularly play, I don't complain at all UNLESS no progress is made from month to month. If they're building things up I have no objection to proxying as long as each time I play there are fewer than the last time.

[asteroidjawa]

I am all for conversions. As for proxies, just write down what everything is so opponents know what they are facing.

[crazyredpraetorian]

I have seen some great counts as armies. However, most are just an excuse to codex hop.

[Cuddy]

When it comes to playing friends number one can be great. I got into the game playing two friends, and I know we had more fun playing different match ups all the time rather then the same three armies paired up for every match.

[flygonzom]

Meh, just be wysiwyg. I don't mind the codex hoping as long as the unique units are different, but a tac sqaud is a tac squad.

[Bean]

I've been playing a category 2 army for years. I started building a Chaos army when the current Chaos codex came out, but at that time I didn't like all the spiky and gribbly bits associated with the Chaos model range (and I still don't) so I bought Space Marine models, instead, and used those.

Almost everything is wysiwyg, but conversions are fairly minimal. I cleaned all of the Imperial iconography and purity seals from my marines, but I haven't modeled my Icons of Glory, stating instead that my squad sergeants, who are all visibly distinct, carry them. I use assault marines for Raptors and Terminators for Terminators, but I did arm swaps on the robed Dark Angels Veterans to give them all pairs of chainswords and use them for Berserkers. I built terminators carrying plasma cannons (using the terminator heavy flamer and plastic Devastator plasma cannon bits) that I use as Obliterators.

I use unconverted Balrogs from the WotR line for Daemon Princes (I play them as Wings, Mark of Khorne) and more heavily converted plastic marines as lords and sorcerers. I have a Chaos Terminator Lord with all of his gribbly armor detail cleaned off built into a counts-as Abbadon.

My army is fully painted in a non-cannon scheme, so there's no source of confusion, there.

I have had people presume that my marines are loyalist marines. It's understandable. I've never had anyone complain once I explain to them how my equivalencies work, though.

Really, this is a border-line example. It's not proxies, exactly, 'cause almost everything looks pretty much exactly how it's supposed to except for aesthetic details. There are some conversions, but they're pretty minor.

[flygonzom]

Almost is wysiwyg, but conversions are fairly minimal. I cleaned all of the Imperial iconography and purity seals from my marines, but I haven't modeled my Icons of Glory, stating instead that my squad sergeants, who are all visibly distinct, carry them. I use assault marines for Raptors and Terminators for Terminators, but I did arm swaps on the robed Dark Angels Veterans to give them all pairs of chainswords and use them for Berserkers. I built terminators carrying plasma cannons (using the terminator heavy flamer and plastic Devastator plasma cannon bits) that I use as Obliterators.

I did the same thing with my Berzerkers with a few more spikes and Power Fisting Cypher for the champ. Gives it more of a reaping feel than just the strait up slaughter

[Kaika87]

#1 is inappropriate for tournaments, but ok for casual play IF you're trying out a new concept or still planning the army. Once it's beyond the planning stage, you should move on to #2.

#2 depends on the time and care put into the conversions. If they look cool, and I can tell what's what, it's fine. If the units aren't clearly distinguishable, then it's a problem.

#3 is 100% pure awesomeness. If someone spent this much time and effort making an army that looks that amazing, they can use whatever rules they want, and I won't care because I'll be too busy drooling.

I will say, having been in that position recently, it can be hard to judge when it's time to move beyond the planning stage and make that big lump-sum investment in buying a bunch of models at once. But you're right, you eventually have to do it, and no longer will the folks at my local store be subjected to my Ghetto-Rhinos.

[Bean]

I did the same thing with my Berzerkers with a few more spikes and Power Fisting Cypher for the champ. Gives it more of a reaping feel than just the strait up slaughter

Cool. I actually built my champs with double power weapons, just to keep the sword theme going. I also retained the Dark Angels sword iconography--on the shoulder pads. It's pretty much the only iconography I didn't scrape off of my guys, and it shows up mostly on my berserkers.