I can't speak for everyone, but it's not the constraints that I care about. I have precisely zero intention of EVER attending an official FFG event. I just think the attitude, that you need multiple redundant copies of your upgrade cards (and not just visual reminders, but actual official copies) stinks.

It has absolutely no impact on me whatsoever. I will play with 'proxy' cards (by using the same card more than once where appropriate) and if my opponent isn't cool with that, then they're very likely not the kind of person I want to spend an hour playing toy space-ships with in the first place, so it's no skin of my nose.

But I still think the rule, and the attitude it stems from, stinks. And I will continue to say that every time this topic comes up.

As people have said, what are you doing in this thread then? This issue is almost never going to come up when playing at home.... and if it does, then just don't invite THAT guy next time.

People are free to proxy to their heart's content. Heck, some people even create new ships with user-selected abilities and play "what-if" scenarios in their own homes.

You have an issue with FFG's business model? Fine, fair enough. But you'll have to agree to disagree with a lot of people. You basically vote with your wallet, if you hate FFG that much, the best way to "stick it to the man" is to NOT buy their product. Personally, I like their product and have decided that their rules are fair. Plus, I now have a lot of friends who play Armada and I can borrow stuff as needed --- which is usually just one or two bits and pieces.

But it's not just an attitude, it's a business case. And undoubtedly a well thought out, thoroughly analyzed one.

Without the business case, and the opportunity to satisfy the bean counters, then we wouldn't have gotten to play this Star Wars game that we all love - those licenses don't come cheap! And let's face it - you came for the opportunity to command an ISD or Nebulon. What percentage of players do you think came for the game mechanics first, and the fluff second? I'd wager close to.....none.

Without a healthy company eager to invest more $$ into the game, we don't get waves 3, 4, 5, and onwards.

Yep, these companies are BUSINESSES, not charities.

Interestingly, a few companies have failed to get my "vote" because of choices they have made either as a company (such as GW's codex and manual re-hash every 2 years) or the way they have made their game (several PC games comes to mind, which I have not bought BECAUSE I loved the tabletop version and the PC version did not fit what I wanted to play).

I agree, but lets not pretend that FFGs success is purely due to their decision to require excess redundant upgrade cards in tournaments. They produce a great game with great miniatures, great rules and using some of the most loved, recognisable and long lived IP in the world. While it's only speculation to guess that they will continue to thrive just fine if they didn't require those extra cards, it's speculating just as much to imply they might lose the licence or the game might founder if such a change was made.

It's quite easy to see how "requiring those extra cards" makes them more money, but it's not that easy to speculate on whether or not the company would go under if they DID NOT require those extra cards. Are you willing to risk Armada and other FFG games being discontinued because they could not support it financially? "Oh, but then they could change the rule later on if they need to!" Well, this is generating so much flak now as it is even with FFG keeping a uniform stance on their games since day 1, how much hate do you think they'll get if they changed their stance mid-game?

Cheap hobbyists are always going to find a way to cut corners.

Taking in the responses to my post. Perhaps I was wrong. I have plenty of cards to go around anyways. I'm trying to cut down on clutter.

Cheap hobbyists are free to cut corners, all the corners they want. However, "cutting corners" vs. tournament rules are two different things entirely.