Our hosts here at FFG have finally posted Doug Kinney's wave 3 preview article.

In classic FFG fashion, their beautiful accompanying graphics have at least one error. Can you spot it?

http://fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4333

Nothing jumps out at me, though I suppose the attack arcs should really be conic and not triangular....

Keep looking folks, there's a no-prize in it for you if you find it.

Cluster missiles cost 4 points rather than 5? (Or was the picture of the card I found dodgy?)

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Is it just me or is FFG just messing with us now? Are they just putting these little errors in their graphics on purpose to see who is paying attention?

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Is it just me or is FFG just messing with us now? Are they just putting these little errors in their graphics on purpose to see who is paying attention?

Possibly, I'm still certain that White Dwarf misspelled my name on purpose every time they showed anything I had done.

The graphic shows a stress token on Jan Ors, and her ability doesn't work if she's stressed.

Edit: I suppose that stress token indicates the one she gets from using her ability. Never mind.

The graphic shows a stress token on Jan Ors, and her ability doesn't work if she's stressed.

Actually the stress token is greyed out, so it's reflected as being conditional of being used, just like the +attack dice.

What I want to know is where the 6th attack die comes from (3 from wedge, 1 from Jan, 1 from expose... that's 5 in my maths)

+1 from being within Range 1 of the target?

Thank you

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Is it just me or is FFG just messing with us now? Are they just putting these little errors in their graphics on purpose to see who is paying attention?

As far as I know, cluster missiles have always cost 5... What are you talking about? : )

I actually wrote that back in early June, having only seen the materials. I hadn't played any test games, so I was mainly just theorizing.

People have talked about Ibby with PtL instead of Elusiveness, but in my play testing I found that I had a hard time NOT using PtL before executing a red maneuver. That;s something people are going to have to watch out for.

They edited it some, but I think overall they did a good job with what I wrote. Did I get anything wrong? What did you think?

I actually wrote that back in early June, having only seen the materials. I hadn't played any test games, so I was mainly just theorizing.

People have talked about Ibby with PtL instead of Elusiveness, but in my play testing I found that I had a hard time NOT using PtL before executing a red maneuver. That;s something people are going to have to watch out for.

They edited it some, but I think overall they did a good job with what I wrote. Did I get anything wrong? What did you think?

I think most of the strategies you outlined were well reasoned and will be incorporated into new lists once wave 3 hits general release.

I can't wait to get my hands on my pre-order and try them with my gaming group.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Is it just me or is FFG just messing with us now? Are they just putting these little errors in their graphics on purpose to see who is paying attention?

As far as I know, cluster missiles have always cost 5... What are you talking about? : )

I have like 8 Cluster missile cards in my collection that say otherwise...Click on the Cluster missile link in the article's text to see the correct graphic (4 points) For some strange reason the graphic with the Firespray is incorrect.

I know it's nitpicking, but it just strikes me as strange that every single time they put out a strategy article the graphics have some sort of error.

They edited it some, but I think overall they did a good job with what I wrote. Did I get anything wrong? What did you think?

I think you did a great job of giving an initial comparison to previous waves, and some solid predictions to how Wave 3 will change the shape of squads.

Of course, since they waited so long to publish this, people who are active on forums have actively discussed many of these points already. But that does not diminish the value of your information. For one thing, it was clearly presented and all in one spot. I know that some of the people in my Facebook X-wing group encountered this article yesterday and got a lot of this info for the first time.

Thanks for writing it and for being willing to share with the online community. Your contributions to the game have made it better and more fun for everyone.

Woo hoo! I'm glad I found it and won the no-prize! I had to find it I saw it..."challenge accepted!"

I enjoyed the article, as it was a great round up of the Wave and its new tricks. It's only disappointing we didn't get it earlier, as some ideas have already been looked at eleswhere, but you still gave some new twists (such as adding Expose into a Wedge, Jan combo).

Thanks Hothie!

Hothie, I'm surprised they didn't edit your comment, "Thankfully, the mechanic is only limited to two cards." Seems like a jab at their rules system, which is accurate, but I'm impressed that FFG just went with it. Or did you mean something else when you said, "Thankfully"?

Hothie, I'm surprised they didn't edit your comment, "Thankfully, the mechanic is only limited to two cards." Seems like a jab at their rules system, which is accurate, but I'm impressed that FFG just went with it. Or did you mean something else when you said, "Thankfully"?

TBH, it says this is a very powerful thing.. But Thankfully due to it being on a system only 3 ships can use and the way it compares to their other weapons, it's not an issue.

In other words, this could be a problem, but they have designed it in a way it isn't

Its a very powerful mechanic. If it wasn't limited in which ships could use it, range, and maybe had a higher attack rating, it would be a clear example if powercreep. The designers did limit its use and usefulness, though, which is why I'm thankful.