When American copyright laws consider it to be legally permissible (and they do), I don't understand why any gamers need to get upset over the matter. They're selling 3rd party game pieces and generally they are all legally doing so, why have stricter personal standards beyond that?

When American copyright laws consider it to be legally permissible (and they do), I don't understand why any gamers need to get upset over the matter. They're selling 3rd party game pieces and generally they are all legally doing so, why have stricter personal standards beyond that?

Except what you think is incorrect.
A name is a Trademark. If you make a widget for, say, a bicycle called Bikewidget, and you register that Trademark, then if I come along and also make a widget for a bicycle called Bikewidget, I am infringing your Trademark. That is true whether my widget is a direct copy of yours or not. If I make a widget for a motorcycle and call it Bikewidget, you might try to enforce your Trademark, but you'd have to demonstrate that a person going to buy a widget for a bicycle would be confused that my widget for a motorcycle is called the same thing. If your Trademark is *really* famous - like, say, "Han Solo" is - then you can probably enforce it in a blanket fashion, even if I were using it for something completely unrelated to bicycles.
The actual appearance of an object is covered by Copyright(or, depending on jurisdiction and function, Design Rights or some similar separate category). Copyright does not operate by the same rules as Trademarks. You can Copyright very specific expressions of an idea, such as the actual miniature FFG produce and sell as "Han Solo", but you cannot copyright "man in a long coat with a sci-fi gun". It doesn't matter how famous your "man in a long coat with a sci-fi gun" is, you only have the right to control and claim ownership over your specific version of the idea.
So long as someone is not producing a miniature with Harrison Ford's exact likeness, that isn't an exact duplicate of an existing branded & sold model, and they're not calling it Han Solo, then "Han Solo" by another name is not Han Solo, legally speaking.
 
When companies make the argument you do - and the person they're arguing against has the money or pro bono representation to fight it - they lose. Again - Lucasfilm v Ainsworth. GW v Chapterhouse Studios(and that one's in the USA, one of the most corporate-friendly court systems in the world). Jedirev refers to GW(I believe anyway), but after their absolute shambles of an attempt to go after Chapterhouse, they have backed right off their prior aggressively litigious attitude, because the absolute wombats in charge have finally grasped that you can't claim ownership over geometric shapes or generic visual cues or letters from alphabets that are thousands of years old. Instead, they've been focusing on what they can control and easily sue over in future if the opportunity arises - Trademarks; it's no accident they've stopped calling things Elves and Orcs and Marines in favour of Groblesnork Warblflorbles and Pseudolatinicius Nonsensicus stuff.
Regardless, as people have stated numerous times, Disney have a literal army of lawyers, so how about instead of joining up with the Tabletop Gaming Volunteer Copyright Police folk just buy, or not, whatever they feel comfortable with and leave the legal stuff to the people who's actual job it is to care.
 

See, the thing there is - 1. Whether it actually is "theft of intellectual property" even by the current definition is extremely arguable. Copyright covers specific expressions of a concept and while people *assume* that extends to *all possible* expressions of a concept that's not actually true, it's just the perception that's been created by corporate bullying over the years. Which leads us to; 2. Copyright "law" is a shambles and, functionally, a wild west in which the only *actual* law is "who has the most money for lawyers". Often when small producers stand up to big corporations they win handily, though sadly it often costs them their business anyway due to the aforementioned money thing. For instance, Lucasfilm likely don't have any rights to control the use of imagery from the OT any more at all in the UK, since they tried to sue a guy making Stormtrooper armour for cosplayers(Lucasfilm v Ainsworth) and the court ruled that as the ST design was used as the basis for mass-produced products, it constitutes an "industrial prop" and so falls under Design Rights, which last only 15 years. Now they could come back and try to make the argument that ruling should only apply specifically to full-size costumes, but the legal logic that was established there holds for basically everything, since Lucasfilm gleefully use their designs to make mass-produced everything; even Legion would qualify. Meaning most PT and OT content wouldn't even qualify for Copyright per se in the UK.
There's also 3. Not everyone believes that the present state of Intellectual Property law - a state crafted almost entirely by lobbying by large corporations, Disney at their forefront, rather than by the needs or desires of actual artists - is fair, or just, or that breaching it constitutes "theft". Opinions on the matter are far too varied and complex to simplify things to the degree proponents of the status quo often do.
In the end though, the reality is that the reasons why third party stuff are broadly tolerated by big companies are simple; they almost always add more value than they "cost" the company, and the simple fact is they don't even qualify as small fry in terms of relative revenue. In terms of adding value, they can provide alternatives for people who dislike a key official model in an army they otherwise find appealing, they can provide aftermarket parts to allow people to individualise their armies, they can fill gaps in a miniature range that it's simply not profitable enough for the company themselves to bother with, and in so doing encourage people to stay invested in the system and thus subject to the company's marketing for new releases of their own product. In terms of their size - the simple reality is that the number of people even aware third party models exist is tiny compared to the overall playerbase, and the number buying them smaller still, so providing they keep away from trademarked names and aren't selling actual recasts, it's in nobody's interest to kick up a fuss, in the same way that it's not worth Disney's while to trawl Deviantart to visit legal fury upon some chump doing an occasional commission piece of Darth Vader.
 
I do wonder though - why do some people seem to care about this at all? Disney aren't your pal, our relationship with them is defined entirely in terms of them offering product and us buying it, beyond that transaction neither of us owes the other anything. If you don't care for third party models then don't use them, or heck, be really puritan and refuse to even play against them, that's your choice, but this bizarre need some people have to tattle to Corporate Daddy just baffles me. At that point you're basically that kid who ran to Teacher to tell on someone for eating chocolate in the hall or passing notes in class - nobody's hurting anybody, and it only becomes disruptive when you start to make a big deal about it.

I sure hope this is different enough from the source material.
 

Some of them are smart in that they name their models with rather generic names. The real question is, are those images trademarked or copy righted. Also, is it worth it for Disney to pay lawyers to send out the C&Ds.

Who's a dead game now, Imperial Assault!

They probably won't even have Lando and Palpatine together in the same scene to reunite as friends.

There are, for me, only three star wars films, and a good fan film. The rest can be ignored.

Oh I know that lots of things don’t make sense but it kinda ruined the immersion for me, but thats a very large piece of a very large station that kinda got  vaporised
but don’t get me wrong I still wanna know what they’re gonna do with it

As many people are pointing out, technology doesn't always work the way it does now. For most of human history 100 years advancement in war-related technology would have provided you a minor advantage at best, certainly not enough to offset superior generalship, command and control, training, better defensive position, etc. It's only the world we live in now where this is true, we are the exception, and likely only a temporary one. Probably by the year 100,000, when our technology resembles theirs, 30-40 random years will see little to no meaningful progress whatsoever.
Reminds me also of fantasy worlds where people complain the technology level doesn't drastically increase over hundreds or thousands of years... it's like learn about a time period that isn't Late Medieval/Renaissance Europe. No remarkable technological progress is frequently the norm, it's actually far from implausible, it's instead likely. And so too here, it's entirely possible for their sci-fi world to be in an era of relative technological stasis.

They probably won't even have Lando and Palpatine together in the same scene to reunite as friends.

They probably won't even have Lando and Palpatine together in the same scene to reunite as friends.

They probably won't even have Lando and Palpatine together in the same scene to reunite as friends.

But they’re fun!

Real world comparisons are not really valid for Star Wars technology progression.  They were still using pretty similar gear thousands of years prior to the the start of the clone wars.
Meanwhile we are trying to compare that to the real world 20th century, in which every aspect of life was transformed in a matter of decades

They probably won't even have Lando and Palpatine together in the same scene to reunite as friends.

War... war never changes.
 
Except in cases of extreme retcon.

When I started in 40k, a boxed 2,000 point Space Marine Army had 41 men and a vehicle in it. Now that game is infected with the sickness of greed. I all but abandoned it for Legion because Legion uses actually playable and paintable sized collections of models like 40k once did.

Only the star wars fans deal in absolutes

Seems like FFG is pushing their fluff to make them seem more like elite security forces for military bases and secret installations. Which, if they were, could make sense as a Corps unit because a battle over an Imperial installation would heavily feature the security forces stationed to guard it. But also there's the general, "lulz, whatever, we don't care" of Star Wars.

Lets all of us call out @DewbackScout

Dewback jousting!

Thanks but I hardly called it. I think I had it as a mulit-way tie. I'm not surprised though. FFG 1) loves [storm]troopers, 2) seems to prefer Scarif compatibility to all else in Legion, and 3) does not care how rare things were in-universe.
Letting people run an army of all-shore troopers is strange, considering they're apparently far rarer than scout troopers.
However this will cut down on the "need" to build an army up from nothing but core sets! There is at least now some reason to buy ONE core set, then fleet troopers and shore troopers, add other stuff that's not-in-cores till you hit 800, and stop. I totally understand people not wanting just 1 unit of snowtroopers for a 3rd corps, yet if you're buying stormtroopers and are just starting out you'd may as well go whole hog on a 2nd starter.
Let the post-corps wave speculation begin!

I think you missed this one: