This was posted on the UK facebook group. The writer emailed FFG about using EI with the Gonk card and this is the (slightly unexpected) result:

"In response to your rules question:

Rules Question:
Hi X-wing Miniatures rules question: The new 'Gonk' card has two possible effects on it. Can both actions be used in the same turn via Experimental Interface? Or is the action 'Gonk', preventing it being used twice under the 'same action' rule.

You are correct, since both actions are “Gonk” actions, you cannot do both (add and remove) actions during the same round.

Thanks for playing,

Frank Brooks
Associate Creative Content Developer
Fantasy Flight Games"

That's very curious - I guess it's reasonable enough, but that sets a powerful precedent regarding future cards that come with multiple different actions on them.

Good pull. EI almost had a reason to be equipped, haha.

Thanks for posting that. The general consensus was that you could, because it was two different actions, but apparently FFG considers all actions on a given card to be part of the same 'named action'

It's weird though; why would it be written as two separate actions if it wasn't intended that they be two separate actions?

I mean, it could have been written like this:

" ACTION: Place 1 shield token on this card or remove 1 shield token from this card to recover 1 shield (up to your shield value)."

If it was intended not to be two different actions.

???

There have been some really confusing rulings recently.

That is a bad ruling.

It does make sense to me though. Contrary to other similar cards (e.g. Targeting Computer), the Gonk card does not add two distinctive separate actions to the action bar. It merely adds the action "Gonk" to the list of possible actions a ship can do, which can be either one (charge up tokens) or the other (recuperates shields). Both are Gonk actions.

I suppose this clarification paves the way for future cards that have one name, but provides two different types of actions.

Thank your for posting the clarification.

On a side note, I am having a harder and harder time simply focusing on "read as written" these past few days. I find myself requestionning a lot of stuff and simply pointing at the rules reference no longer seems enough in some cases.

Thank your for posting the clarification.

On a side note, I am having a harder and harder time simply focusing on "read as written" these past few days. I find myself requestionning a lot of stuff and simply pointing at the rules reference no longer seems enough in some cases.

We're lucky to have a game where the oddest cards are the ones that are meta-relevant compared to more stale alternatives, but it does make for a world of increasingly complex circumstances.

Is an asteroid's damage considered part of a tractor beam attack, dots? Is it?

the Gonk card does not add two distinctive separate actions to the action bar.

That seems to be the RAI. Which means we would likely treat all future upgrades with more than one action as a single named action.

Thank your for posting the clarification.

On a side note, I am having a harder and harder time simply focusing on "read as written" these past few days. I find myself requestionning a lot of stuff and simply pointing at the rules reference no longer seems enough in some cases.

We're lucky to have a game where the oddest cards are the ones that are meta-relevant compared to more stale alternatives, but it does make for a world of increasingly complex circumstances.

Is an asteroid's damage considered part of a tractor beam attack, dots? Is it?

Yes! I mean... no... maybe? Let me get my 8-ball application.

Small story, we had a store tournament 2 days after wave 8 was released, a huge one. The store owner feared the upcoming wave 8 questions, so me and another guy spent 2 days building a mini-FAQ, thinking that the new FAQ would not be out in time. We collected all the information, all the references and dug in the forums a lot. By the end, we were pretty happy (and a little smug). When the new FAQ was released, we had ruled 50% of the cases wrong...

It does make sense to me though. Contrary to other similar cards (e.g. Targeting Computer), the Gonk card does not add two distinctive separate actions to the action bar. It merely adds the action "Gonk" to the list of possible actions a ship can do, which can be either one (charge up tokens) or the other (recuperates shields). Both are Gonk actions.

I suppose this clarification paves the way for future cards that have one name, but provides two different types of actions.

No, it doesn't make any sense. Targeting computer is not a similar card. Gonk does not give any actions to your action bar at all, as opposed to Targeting Computer. It adds an "Action: something" and an "Action: something else" to your list of actions. There is no such thing as "Gonk" action.

I accept that ruling, since it came from FFG, but it is still a bad decision from their part.

There is no such thing as "Gonk" action.

While I get your point, apparently that's how they intended for it to work. But it's not like Frank and Alex haven't made a ruling that was overturned in the FAQ latter.

To be fair, every action needs a title and there's no specific name for either of Gonk's actions, so it's reasonable to declare that they are both "Gonk". Though I agree with Spaceinvader that it could have been presented better as an "either / or" single action.

That's unfortunate. It makes Gonk a little harder to justify using.

Poor GONK already nerfed.

There is no such thing as "Gonk" action.

While I get your point, apparently that's how they intended for it to work. But it's not like Frank and Alex haven't made a ruling that was overturned in the FAQ latter.

This. An e-mail from these guys isn't an official ruling. TOs will likely use it, but they've been wrong before.

This is a terrible ruling. One, it dumps EI back into obscurity. Two, Gonk will quickly join it. Three, it stifles more interesting future upgrade cards. Four, it doesn't actually make sense in the published rules:

"

• As an action, a ship may resolve an ability beginning with the "ACTION:" header on one of its Upgrade or Damage cards.

Upgrade cards don't = actions, they have actions on them. Gonk clearly has two DIFFERENT actions on his card. The results of the actions are also different.

I anticipate this is one of the rulings that they've gotten wrong. If I was a scum player, I'd be super annoyed that it may be taken as gospel during tournaments.

Considering I run Imperials, however, I'm not even sure what shields are.

every action needs a title

Really?

That's unfortunate. It makes Gonk a little harder to justify using.

Is 1 shield token worth two actions and a stress?

You can bank 2-3 GonkShields before engaging in combat, then spend 1 action later on to recover 2-3 shields over the course of 2-3 turns. This lets you use PTL instead of EI for increased action economy (so you can TL & Focus when in combat and Focus & GonkShield: Recover when not).

That's unfortunate. It makes Gonk a little harder to justify using.

Is 1 shield token worth two actions and a stress?

You can bank 2-3 GonkShields before engaging in combat, then spend 1 action later on to recover 2-3 shields over the course of 2-3 turns. This lets you use PTL instead of EI for increased action economy (so you can TL & Focus when in combat and Focus & GonkShield: Recover when not).

On a 4-LOM build I had just written prior to seeing this thread, yes. With 4-LOM, ExpInt, and Gonk, I'd have had the ability in mid-game to double-Gonk via EI, regen a shield, then shed the stress to an enemy ship at R1. This just pushes the Misthunter back down out of usefulness to me.

Well it's not the Gonkiest Gonk that ever Gonked anymore but...

I'm still gonna Gonk my YV-666.

Thanks for posting that. The general consensus was that you could, because it was two different actions, but apparently FFG considers all actions on a given card to be part of the same 'named action'

Which is a kind of weird way to rule on this, since under the RRG for "Action" we have:

" As an action, a ship may resolve an ability beginning with the “Action:” header on one of its Upgrade or Damage cards. "

And on Experimental Interface we have:

" Once per round, after you perform an action, you may perform 1 free action from an equipped Upgrade card with the "Action:" header. Then receive 1 stress token. "

So EI seems to suggest you can perform anything that says Action: on it to me. And with Gonk, the two Action: statements are both different ones. If that was the RAI meaning for the card, I'd agree with the above post that it should have had tighter wording with only one Action: trigger, not two in the way that Miranda is worded more or less. stating that you can either bank or use a shield token. Miranda is worded very well for an either/or effect on her pilot card, so I'm not sure why this one is so wildly different for the same apparently either/or direction.

every action needs a title

Really?

I mean, that's the logic that the email seems to be working off of. Otherwise, what are you actually declaring?

This was posted on the UK facebook group

Any chance of a link?

Otherwise, what are you actually declaring?

"I am performing this action, as denoted by this Action: header."

This was posted on the UK facebook group

Any chance of a link?

Otherwise, what are you actually declaring?

"I am performing this action, as denoted by this Action: header."

"This action, which is ... "Gonk's first action" ...?"

This was posted on the UK facebook group

Any chance of a link?

Otherwise, what are you actually declaring?

"I am performing this action, as denoted by this Action: header."

"This action, which is ... "Gonk's first action" ...?"

"I'm GONKing a shield onto GONK" or "I'm GONKing a shield onto my ship from GONK".

The weird thing about this ruling is that it kind of implies that both actions could be done with a single 'perform action' step, if the whole card is one action...