What part of fantasy flight got my money for a product do you not understand? If I'm not using something I purchased, and someone else can use it what's the problem? No one is ripping anyone off here. Not everyone can afford every ship. Let's punish the people who can't afford a big ship. How is that cheating them if the person who can't afford it doesn't buy it?

Feel free to trade wherever you like, it's a free country. But this is a business, and you have to abide by their rules while you're here, even if you don't respect them.

I see I no RULES regarding trading. Get over yourself. Some people can't afford to buy everything.

I'm not sure I get where the attitude is coming from.

Again, you have no rights here. A simple gloss of the ToU should be more than enough to reinforce that point, but if you're not inclined to re-read them, I'll just remind you of an old business maxim: "we retain the right to refuse service to anyone."

I hope you can see how contradictory this statement is. By not buying "an entire **** pack for one card," you're denying FFG the profit that pack would have made them. That is most definitely a loss

It's not a loss. It's a "perceived loss" that has no bearing on the reality of the situation. I am not going to buy an entire shuttle to get one card, not ever. So there is no loss.

that example highlights nicely the inherent issue in this case. The number of people with enough Lambda shuttles to have "too many" advanced sensor cards should be rather low,

I agree that it's unlikely to happen, but I don't agree that it's harmful to FFG profits, AND even if it really was (which it isn't) who cares, they might make great games but they aren't fricking Greenpeace, they are just a company that's making plenty of profit already.

A "perceived loss"? Is that an economic term that I'm not aware of?

Look, we can play the semantic game if you really want to, but I wouldn't recommend it. Your position is untenable, and no amount of word twisting will change the obvious facts that I highlighted above. This is not a new phenomenon, and I am not inventing economic concepts out of whole cloth.

If person A buys two rebel transports, and person B can't afford to buy one. Person A gives person B the extra cards because he can't AFFORD to buy one, how is fantasy flight losing money? Again, how is fantasy flight losing money?

If person A buys two rebel transports, and person B can't afford to buy one. Person A gives person B the extra cards because he can't AFFORD to buy one, how is fantasy flight losing money? Again, how is fantasy flight losing money?

Because person B didn't buy a transport. That's a $60 net loss, and this is basic economics 101.

If someone can't AFFORD something, they will NOT be buying it. How HARD is that to understand? Again how is fantasy flight losing money on something that someone can't AFFORD? Obviously you failed economics. How is it a net loss if someone can't AFFORD to buy something?

Who runs Bartertown?

http://www.bartertown.com/trading/

Break a deal, spin the wheel.

http://www.fprealms.com has a trading section. Its a general Flight Path system site, sister site of the biggest online Heroclix community, so it has a lot of Heroclix and Attack Wing players. I haven't frequented the trading forum there, but the site has a built in feedback system and people are trading. Just might be hard to find what you are looking for as the pool is limited.

If someone can't AFFORD something, they will NOT be buying it. How HARD is that to understand? Again how is fantasy flight losing money on something that someone can't AFFORD?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand. What people can and can't afford is not FFG's concern, and if you can't afford something, you can either save up for it or accept that it's just tough luck kiddo. This is the way the world works, and no amount of self-entitlement will change it.

That having been said, I am not discouraging people from trading. I am only discouraging people from doing it here, and not even because it hurts their sales. But that still will not change the fact that it does exactly that.

If person A buys two rebel transports, and person B can't afford to buy one. Person A gives person B the extra cards because he can't AFFORD to buy one, how is fantasy flight losing money? Again, how is fantasy flight losing money?

Because person B didn't buy a transport. That's a $60 net loss, and this is basic economics 101.

Person B was never going to buy a Transport. That's basic common sense 101. You don't need a degree in ****ing eco-****ing-nomics to see that.

Yes some companies do consider it to be a loss. But that's because all the people that work out all these stats sleep on pillows stuffed with money and don't understand the phrase "can't afford it"

Can we pretend like you're entitled to the contents of the transport pack just a little bit more? Because people aren't sounding like spoiled children enough yet.

I see, we just punish the people who can't afford it. They just won't get the cards.

I see, we just punish the people who can't afford it. They just won't get the cards.

Nobody is punishing you. You are not being forced to play the game. You certainly aren't being forced to play the game competitively, and lacking the contents of the transport pack is in no way equivalent to depriving you of an opportunity to play and enjoy the game.

This reminds me of the habitual crying over the reserved list in Magic. It sucks to high heaven, I won't deny that. But what Wizards chooses to reprint is their business, and nobody is entitled to free cardboard just because the barrier to non-mandatory formats is uncommonly high.

1) This is their forum, not yours. You have no rights here. That's key to comprehending everything else.

2) Secondary markets hurt sales, hence my rhetorical question about the video game industry.*

3) It's rude to conduct trades right in front of the store owner, and likewise hurts their sales. Hence my rhetorical question about your LGS.

Consider #2 and #3 in light of #1, and then tell me if you still feel entitled to do whatever you want here.

*Just to preempt anybody who cares to bring up Magic in this context, constructed formats are not what drives first party (i.e. booster) sales.

You make a good point. One thing I would say however is that this isn't in front of the store owner, rather the artist.

And while the video game industry reference is kind of similar, I would argue that they have a completely different set of issues. I don't think they have even a fraction of a problem with used sales as they do with piracy.

And while it is entirely possible to "illegally download" X-Wing minis to use instead of purchasing them, I didn't see anybody arguing for FFG on the thread dealing with Shapeways models and how to paint them.

This isn't to say that we should not be giving FFG respect as a company. I fully applaud them for the extraordinary work they did in creating such an amazing game and continue to do by releasing equally amazing minis. However I still maintain that a person who trades extra cards to someone who never intended on buying, say, the transport in the first place doesn't leave FFG out any money.

Thank you Explosive Ewok. I purchased two, and I gave my cards to someone who couldn't afford one. Which means my purchase of two, makes up for giving the cards to someone who couldn't afford it.

I paid for the cards, they got their money. It's my business what I do with them.

It sounds like this is more of a moral aspect than a legal one, in which this would be a person to person basis and opinion. Also, trying to convince that someone elses opinion is wrong on a forum is pretty useless, but displaying your own opinion is perfectly fine.

That being said, I can suggest a good place for trades (X-Wing is very popular as well as ALL types of TT Wargames, Trading Card Games, RPG's and so much more). www.bartertown.com and it's free to use. Just please read the rules prior to posting and anyone should have zero problems getting started.

- Lord Cedric

It's not nonsense, it's common sense and basic business theory. You may not like it, but it's true - and not because I say so, but because this isn't a new concept that just magically appeared when X-Wing became a thing.

And, again, I'm not attaching any moral value to the act of trading. I don't think you're a bad person for doing it, but I think it might be disrespectful and rude to do it here.

I paid for the cards, they got their money. It's my business what I do with them.

And it's their business whether they let you post at all.

There are no RULES against it.

Fine, you don't agree with me. You clearly must be more educated than I am. Let's see how anemic you are to a scholarly source: http://authors.library.caltech.edu/43281/1/aer.103.7.2911.pdf

I'll give you a leg up in your studies: trading is a frictionless secondary market, even if there is no money exchanged between secondary parties. Now you can stop arguing with me, and direct your attention to the field of economics.

It's not nonsense, it's common sense and basic business theory. You may not like it, but it's true - and not because I say so, but because this isn't a new concept that just magically appeared when X-Wing became a thing.

And, again, I'm not attaching any moral value to the act of trading. I don't think you're a bad person for doing it, but I think it might be disrespectful and rude to do it here.

I paid for the cards, they got their money. It's my business what I do with them.

And it's their business whether they let you post at all.

This is all assuming FFG really gives a crap in the first place.

I see your point and the financial argument you are standing on, and hey what company doesn't care about their bottom line, but the reality is that FFG has never explicitly stated that there should be no talk of trade on these boards, meaning they might not care in the slightest, meaning you really are standing up for them for no reason.

I think if FFG had an issue with it, or if they wanted to put a stop to it in general, they would issue an official statement.

Seeing as they haven't done either of these things it becomes a moot point to argue on their behalf.

Everyone has opinions. There's nothing wrong with that. WonderWAAAGH believes it is morally wrong to conduct trades here. Others agree, others disagree. I think the point that needs to be made here is that on no other occasion or topic has FFG's opinion ever come into question, and that until we hear otherwise there is no shame in posting whatever.

What I have read from him and I support the premise, that FFG should not be expected to have a "trade" forum on their site that is all.

The irony, which i tried to point out before, is that at least two other forums on this site DO have trade subforums. So the idea that it is "against the rules" or somehow frowned upon by FFG is not supported. In fact, in those particular cases trading and/or outright sales seem to be encouraged.