I'm racking my brain to try and understand the clarification made in the FAQ regarding this card.
The only thing that makes sense to me is they have accidentally swapped the words 'attacker' and 'defender'.

Can anyone provide any clarity on this?

P.S. I understand that HSCP cannot force the order in which the token is spent throughout the modify dice step, this makes sense with AC etc. its the wording that has thrown me. It makes it sound like I have to spend tokens if I have HSCP equipped.

According to the FAQ, it appears that the ship with Hotshot Co-Pilot is the ship that needs to spend the token. It looks like the clause in front of the comma should be swapped.

FAQ, pg 18:
'When attacking a ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped, the defender must spend the focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Defense Dice" step.'

'When defending against a ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped, the attacker must spend a focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Attack Dice" step.'

These lines should probably read:
'When defending against a ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped, the defender must spend the focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Defense Dice" step.'

'When attacking a ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped, the attacker must spend a focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Attack Dice" step.'

It was a typo, I think they updated it. Are you looking at 4.3.1?

2 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

It was a typo, I think they updated it. Are you looking at 4.3.1?

The text I pasted in is from 4.3.1. It looks like it is the same as what was in both versions of 4.3.0.

Yeah, it's gotta be a typo and WWHSD I'm pretty sure has what it should read.

It actually makes no sense at all as worded. As in literal nonsense not just inaccurate. It says "When attacking...the Defender..." So like a ship would have to be attacking and also be the defender at the same time for it to apply as written.

Unless it's supposed to be something like "While attacking a ship, if you have Hot Shot copilot equipped, the defender....blah blah blah" and it's very poorly worded.

I don't think its a typo since I'm not sure of any grammar rule defining whether "with HSCP equipped" applies to the subject or object of the sentence fragment. It threw me for a loop when I first read it and I hate the way its written since it sounds completely wrong to me, but I believe the way it is currently phrased can be interpreted correctly or incorrectly without breaking any rules in english. I like WWHSD's phrasing a bit more because it feels better, but I'm not sure it actually changes the meaning or just my initial interpretation.

4 minutes ago, sharrrp said:

Unless it's supposed to be something like "While attacking a ship, if you have Hot Shot copilot equipped, the defender....blah blah blah" and it's very poorly worded.

I like this phrasing much more as it seems to remove the ambiguity.

50 minutes ago, joeshmoe554 said:

I don't think its a typo since I'm not sure of any grammar rule defining whether "with HSCP equipped" applies to the subject or object of the sentence fragment. It threw me for a loop when I first read it and I hate the way its written since it sounds completely wrong to me, but I believe the way it is currently phrased can be interpreted correctly or incorrectly without breaking any rules in english. I like WWHSD's phrasing a bit more because it feels better, but I'm not sure it actually changes the meaning or just my initial interpretation.

I like this phrasing much more as it seems to remove the ambiguity.

The sentences seem to be written from the perspective of the ship that needs to spend the focus, not from the perspective of the ship with HSCP which I think may make it seem a little awkward.

Maybe something like this clears would be even more clear (I added the bit about primary weapons to be more consistent with the card):

'When a ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped is attacking with a primary weapon , the defender must spend the focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Defense Dice" step.'

'When a ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped is defending, the attacker must spend a focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Attack Dice" step.'

I sometimes wonder why FFG hasn't ever approached the rules forum or members thereof to proofread/assist with the FAQ. They generally eventually address things in agreement with the forum consensus and with consultation from choice members they might have fewer wording oopsies.

1 minute ago, nigeltastic said:

I sometimes wonder why FFG hasn't ever approached the rules forum or members thereof to proofread/assist with the FAQ. They generally eventually address things in agreement with the forum consensus and with consultation from choice members they might have fewer wording oopsies.

Probably because of employment law and liability and NDAs and whatever. Even becoming a playtester requires a large amount of legalistic processes.

I'm pretty sure the playtesters were heavily involved in the development of the errata FWIW. Just from a couple of conversations with people.

9 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Probably because of employment law and liability and NDAs and whatever. Even becoming a playtester requires a large amount of legalistic processes.

I'm pretty sure the playtesters were heavily involved in the development of the errata FWIW. Just from a couple of conversations with people.

I must imagine you are correct. I just feel like they could save some effort by saying 'hey wwhsd, you live on the rules forum anyway, here's an nda, $15, and a box of crackerjacks, proofread our text'.

2 minutes ago, nigeltastic said:

I must imagine you are correct. I just feel like they could save some effort by saying 'hey wwhsd, you live on the rules forum anyway, here's an nda, $15, and a box of crackerjacks, proofread our text'.

To which, for instance, if I were asked, I'd say 'no thanks' because accepting income via means not covered by the tax system means I have to start filing a tax return which is way too much like a hassle.

It's never as simple as that. It could be, and should be, but it's not.

8 hours ago, WWHSD said:

According to the FAQ, it appears that the ship with Hotshot Co-Pilot is the ship that needs to spend the token. It looks like the clause in front of the comma should be swapped.

FAQ, pg 18:
'When attacking a ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped, the defender must spend the focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Defense Dice" step.'

'When defending against a ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped, the attacker must spend a focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Attack Dice" step.'

These lines should probably read:
'When defending against a ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped, the defender must spend the focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Defense Dice" step.'

'When attacking a ship with Hotshot Co-pilot equipped, the attacker must spend a focus token after the "Declare Target" step and before the end of the "Modify Attack Dice" step.'

WWHSD this is what I assumed it was meant to be as well. I'm glad most of us seem to be in agreeance. I will be using it this way, which is how I used it before the FAQ. I think all they were trying to clarify was that you can't choose what order the opponent spends their tokens during modifcation, but potentially made it more ambiguous with this very poor wording.

8 hours ago, sharrrp said:

Yeah, it's gotta be a typo and WWHSD I'm pretty sure has what it should read.

It actually makes no sense at all as worded. As in literal nonsense not just inaccurate.

This is what made me worry. It just made no sense to me so it made me think I was either not using it correctly, or they had now changed it in some weird way.

10 hours ago, nigeltastic said:

I sometimes wonder why FFG hasn't ever approached the rules forum or members thereof to proofread/assist with the FAQ. They generally eventually address things in agreement with the forum consensus and with consultation from choice members they might have fewer wording oopsies.

I think this would be quite a logical solution as some of the members here know exactly how to dissect card, ability or FAQ text and find any faults in it. We would make the best Devil's Advocates they're ever likely to have.

I do agree that the HSCP entry could have been worded better, and doesn't read well at all. But if one replaces the first sentence with "When attacking a ship and you have Hotshot Co-pilot equipped...", then it makes sense. Same applies to the second paragraph "When defending against a ship and you have Hotshot Co-pilot equipped...".

I don't think the entry is a typo at all. I think it's just a confusion over ownership of the HSCP card. It's like "I'm attacking a ship and I have HSCP equipped". Not "I'm attacking a ship that has HSCP equipped", because that assumes ownership of HSCP goes to the ship being attacked.

HEY FFG!! Tell us how you want it to work, and we'll write the FAQ entry for ya!!

I think the community is always going to be better at catching these sorts of things then the company putting out the game could ever afford to be. In just the day the FAQ is released the community probably sinks more man hours into tearing apart and anlyzing the FAQ than FFG staff spend writing and reviewing documentation in a year.

The community also has the advantage of being collaborative. I know I certainly miss a lot of stuff initially or get something wrong on the first pass. It's the back and forth on these boards with other people that get things ironed out. I'd imagine it would be rough to have to catch everything and come to right conclusions when you've only got one or two other people to bounce ideas off of.

46 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

I think the community is always going to be better at catching these sorts of things then the company putting out the game could ever afford to be. In just the day the FAQ is released the community probably sinks more man hours into tearing apart and anlyzing the FAQ than FFG staff spend writing and reviewing documentation in a year.

The community also has the advantage of being collaborative. I know I certainly miss a lot of stuff initially or get something wrong on the first pass. It's the back and forth on these boards with other people that get things ironed out. I'd imagine it would be rough to have to catch everything and come to right conclusions when you've only got one or two other people to bounce ideas off of.

So very true. I just noticed there's a 4.3.1 version now. What changed from 4.3.0?