To be fair, you do get annoyed quite easily at times

But be honest...is it really so unlikely it's just another error? We'll have to wait and see of course, but thats my bet. My wager on said bet is nothing mind you, so i dont really mind either way....

To be fair, you do get annoyed quite easily at times

But be honest...is it really so unlikely it's just another error? We'll have to wait and see of course, but thats my bet. My wager on said bet is nothing mind you, so i dont really mind either way....

Could be.

Something else just occurred...we have anti-redirect and anti-brace upgrades now. This thing will HATE the seemingly inevitable anti-evade guns. Fortunately doesn't seem to be happening just yet!

There may be an Ion card that hurts evades but evades are already pretty weak at any range other than long.

Could be.

Something else just occurred...we have anti-redirect and anti-brace upgrades now. This thing will HATE the seemingly inevitable anti-evade guns. Fortunately doesn't seem to be happening just yet!

every ordnance upgrade is an anti evade gun

Could be.

Something else just occurred...we have anti-redirect and anti-brace upgrades now. This thing will HATE the seemingly inevitable anti-evade guns. Fortunately doesn't seem to be happening just yet!

every ordnance upgrade is an anti evade gun

To be fair, you do get annoyed quite easily at times

But be honest...is it really so unlikely it's just another error? We'll have to wait and see of course, but thats my bet. My wager on said bet is nothing mind you, so i dont really mind either way....

No, I honestly think this was planned. . . It makes me curious to see if this is a Commander (which I think it could be), or a basic upgrade card

Well the only card not revealed in the preview was an officer card. The MC30c Frigate expansion advertises 10 cards. We see 9 out of 10 and the face down one is an upgrade card.

You guys are really annoying me. . .

"Over the course of time, the two red dice he grants you, partnered with your evade tokens, Foresight title, and other upgrades , can very easily prove the difference in your long-range exchanges of fire."

"And other upgrades" could litterally mean any other upgrade that could possibly be impactful in a long-range exchange. All of the Turbolaser upgrades would qualify, any number of upgrades would actually. It is a very nebulous statement that you want to assume means something, but you really don't have grounds for that belief. You could possibly be correct, you could end up correct Waves in the future, but the simplest answer now is FFG goofed again on an article.

In reality even if you are correct, it still makes for a poorly written article to not have that upgrade specifically highlighted in an example that it would be of paramount impact. It be like writing a release article for the Neb-B and 5allying damage as if it had the Salvation title, but not previewing the title.

If it is correct, it is more of a well written hint.

Most people don't look for these things, most people assume it is a mistake. Those little bits of information, those Easter eggs if you will are out there. One just needs to decipher that.

To be fair, you do get annoyed quite easily at times

But be honest...is it really so unlikely it's just another error? We'll have to wait and see of course, but thats my bet. My wager on said bet is nothing mind you, so i dont really mind either way....

No, I honestly think this was planned. . . It makes me curious to see if this is a Commander (which I think it could be), or a basic upgrade card

The quote you are hanging your hat on specifically mentions Ackbar, so the Commander is already spoken for. So do you really think it could be a Commander (which would also make the article just as incorrect)?

To be fair, you do get annoyed quite easily at times

But be honest...is it really so unlikely it's just another error? We'll have to wait and see of course, but thats my bet. My wager on said bet is nothing mind you, so i dont really mind either way....

No, I honestly think this was planned. . . It makes me curious to see if this is a Commander (which I think it could be), or a basic upgrade card

The quote you are hanging your hat on specifically mentions Ackbar, so the Commander is already spoken for. So do you really think it could be a Commander (which would also make the article just as incorrect)?

To be fair, you do get annoyed quite easily at times

But be honest...is it really so unlikely it's just another error? We'll have to wait and see of course, but thats my bet. My wager on said bet is nothing mind you, so i dont really mind either way....

No, I honestly think this was planned. . . It makes me curious to see if this is a Commander (which I think it could be), or a basic upgrade card

The quote you are hanging your hat on specifically mentions Ackbar, so the Commander is already spoken for. So do you really think it could be a Commander (which would also make the article just as incorrect)?

So are you implying that FFG could have made a mistake in their "fake mistake" portion of an article, or are you suggesting that that would just be silly?

Well go ahead.

Sorry, neglected to add the little winky face. Corrected.

Your point was not what I was questioning, rather the mildly ambiguous (it must be a mistake) reply by ScootieATF. Even if it is a mistake including everything in wave 2, it still can be an indication of future upgrades in the works. Yes FFG has made a few oopses in articles, that is not evidence invalidating Lyreaus idea. He could very well be correct, and the mistake is that the picture combines the effects of two commanders.

The mistake you see may not be the mistake you think you see... see.

As another poster noted the caption to the example only mentions Ackbar and the Foresight title, nothing else, in regards to the specific example. The "and other upgrades" is within the article speaking towards general long range exchanges.

You know what is a proper Easter Egg? The Instigator title. And that is because there are no ramifications for not knowing what the 2 Squadrons could possibly be useful for, leaving us only to assume that something in the future will make it relevant.

If FFG didn't frequently, to the point of it being better odds then not, include incorrect information within thier articles they would have the benefit of the doubt from most posters. They have spent that benefit by repeatedly putting out articles with either unsound tactics or completely incorrect information, that in more then a few cases has needlessly muddled various rules issues or simply reasserted incorrect assumptions many players have had.

FFG needs to do a better job with this stuff, plain and simple. It's like Privateer Press and their No Quarter Battle Reports.

Though yes it would be comical for such an upgrade to exist in Commander form which would make a "fake mistake" an actual mustake.

I don't know where this other Commander is supposed to come from; we've already seen the Commander that's included with each ship.

I agree that there are two options, that FFG is planting an Easter egg, or that they made a mistake, but intelligence can't be analyzed in a vacuum, it needs to be considered in context, and FFG doesn't have a history of being that coy with spoilers, and they do have a history of making mistakes in these articles.

I was in military intelligence too, interestingly.

One of the things I was trained for was to look for patterns.

The pattern I see? Preview articles with misleading graphics representing illegal uses of new upgrades.

I do not see any pattern of clever, nuanced easter eggs masquerading as rule mistakes.

I'll utilize occam's razor here and say that yes, it is a mistake.

I was an Army surveyor, and I have yet to see anything built to match the original plans. Someone always runs over the stakes and takes a guess. This could as much be a look at what Armada could have been, as what it could be, or it could just be a poorly edited article.

I was in military intelligence too, interestingly.

One of the things I was trained for was to look for patterns.

The pattern I see? Preview articles with misleading graphics representing illegal uses of new upgrades.

I do not see any pattern of clever, nuanced easter eggs masquerading as rule mistakes.

I'll utilize occam's razor here and say that yes, it is a mistake.

With something new, with a new team and designer for this game it is possible that any past trend analysis can be false and needs to be redone.

I think you guys have looked too far into things.

I think they need to stop making the articles the day before or the day of.

But if you really want to know, you should send them a question asking of a ship can use two identical tokens shown in the preview.

I think you guys have looked too far into things.

I think they need to stop making the articles the day before or the day of.

Indeed.

We are pretty much champing at the bit around these parts.

Well, past trends have been getting the squadron values for ISD and MC80s wrong in their images, and posting the X-Wing titles for the Raider. I don't really see any of those as being visions of what is to come.

Honestly, any attempt to justify this as a preview over a mistake has no bearing in previous previews. To each there own, but I think it's really reaching and trying to come up with something out of nothing. Speculation? Sure. But reasonable speculation? I'm going to side with Occam's razor and say no.

Ok. Go with what you feel. We have all been wrong at one time. I have been wrong before but who knows maybe I am right.

On a side note. . . Didn't they fix those mistakes? We shall see in the next few days.

Ok. Go with what you feel. We have all been wrong at one time. I have been wrong before but who knows maybe I am right.

On a side note. . . Didn't they fix those mistakes? We shall see in the next few days.

Thats why you should send ffg a "rules" question, see if they respond.

Ok. Go with what you feel. We have all been wrong at one time. I have been wrong before but who knows maybe I am right.

On a side note. . . Didn't they fix those mistakes? We shall see in the next few days.

Thats why you should send ffg a "rules" question, see if they respond.