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...

Good point. I think once FFG realizes this, that Frank's ruling will definitely be reversed in a future FAQ.

I'm going to simply ignore the e-mail until its ruled into the FAQ, as I am fairly sure that it will be overturned.

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...

Good point. I think once FFG realizes this, that Frank's ruling will definitely be reversed in a future FAQ.

... and Gonk errataed to only have one Action: header

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).

There. Fixed as per the alleged FB post if that's the RAI.

Or leave it as two Action: statements and you can do both, if that's the way the RAI was meant to be.

Man, people are positive that Frank got this wrong.

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...

How so? Frank didn't say that the whole card is one action, he said that both options are considered "Gonk" actions. This isn't actually a new concept in X-Wing - boost straight, boost left, and boost right are all "Boost" actions, right?

This rule is great. Does it mean that Pilots cant do two or more actions of their action bar anymore?

I mean, its the same. Action Icons on the Action bar are nothing different than actions on this card. If you are not allowed to do two different actions from one card, you cannot do two actions from the same card anymore.

No more Boost, barrel rolling Vader or Sontir.

Sorry for the sarcasm. But this rule is the strangest one i have seen for some time. And the direct opposition to the Rules reference.

if they don't want both actions to be used, they should not have written two separate actions on the card. Just as some already said, one action with an or.

Man, people are positive that Frank got this wrong.

For me, it's a surprise that he went with the interpretation that imposes the more restrictive design. As it has been mentioned, Gonk could have easily been written with a single Action: header and an "or". A future card that grants two different actions is going to need to do something more cumbersome than just listing multiple headers to differentiate them.

Man, people are positive that Frank got this wrong.

For me, it's a surprise that he went with the interpretation that imposes the more restrictive design. As it has been mentioned, Gonk could have easily been written with a single Action: header and an "or". A future card that grants two different actions is going to need to do something more cumbersome than just listing multiple headers to differentiate them.

True, it will make it tougher in the future if they do want to explore that design space. I'm guessing that they separated the effects for clarity - even with Slugrage's big, bold "OR," I think some people would be arguing that you could "Place 1 shield token on this card [...] to recover 1 shield." Of course, by doing so, they made it less clear in another aspect.

Man, people are positive that Frank got this wrong.

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...

How so? Frank didn't say that the whole card is one action, he said that both options are considered "Gonk" actions. This isn't actually a new concept in X-Wing - boost straight, boost left, and boost right are all "Boost" actions, right?

I think this is the part that will bear repeating the most.

I initially thought it wouldn't work as people intended, but figured I'm new at X-wing, so trust the seasoned players. In this instance, it seems that "Gonk" is like "Boost" or "Barrel roll" in that there are different sorts of them, but you can still only do one action of that class per turn. I guess my working with lawyers a lot in crafting policy and regulation is paying off

To me it makes more sense this way, though it is a disappointing conclusion to lose what was, effectively, a stressful take on regen, which being Scum was a thematic.

Man, people are positive that Frank got this wrong.

For me, it's a surprise that he went with the interpretation that imposes the more restrictive design. As it has been mentioned, Gonk could have easily been written with a single Action: header and an "or". A future card that grants two different actions is going to need to do something more cumbersome than just listing multiple headers to differentiate them.

This is it for me. It's not that I think he got it wrong per se, it's his game to design, his say is final even if I think it's dumb.

It's that if he intended it to work the way that email says, why write it the way it's written?

It's that if he intended it to work the way that email says, why write it the way it's written?

That's the part I don't get. I mean I get the RAI, but it would of been fairly simple to have RAW and RAI match up in this case.

Errata, Errata... (Republic, Republic ) .. Lol ... The game designers need to take a stand and stop allowing these threads to sway their opinions ... I was so Disappointed when they added "May" to Tractor Beams ... Just to appease the winners

Errata, Errata... (Republic, Republic ) .. Lol ... The game designers need to take a stand and stop allowing these threads to sway their opinions ... I was so Disappointed when they added "May" to Tractor Beams ... Just to appease the winners

It's whining to discuss rules, in a rules forum? Without the "may" in the Tractor Beam Token rules, there's a number of questions that need to be answered.:

"If there are no legal forced moves, what happens then?"

"If I try to make my opponent boost but he finds that it is not a legal move, have I met the mandatory requirement of the card since I've picked between boost or barrel roll?"

There's no evidence that the game designers let threads change their decisions. They may read them to more fully understand what community members find confusing about the rules and to help catch editing mistakes but I don't have any illusion that the more I argue about why I think something is right (or wrong) that it makes it any more likely that the FFG designers are going to read these forums and reverse their decision in an attempt to appease me.

Ive already been gonking my yv and I likely still will. I dont like the idea of losing EU to EI, though.

If it's meant to be two different versions of the same action, it makes no sense for the card to be formatted the way it is. It would say, "Either add a shield token to the card OR remove a shield token from the card and add it to your ship."

For the people likening it to Boost, the Boost reference card has an or buried in the middle of the action description, not three separate action descriptions which each use a different template.

FFG has a history of "clarifying" things not according to the actual rules of the game or how the cards are actually written, but just according to how the feel it should work or random fiat, i.e., the Vader-Gunner debacle.

Errata, Errata... (Republic, Republic ) .. Lol ... The game designers need to take a stand and stop allowing these threads to sway their opinions ... I was so Disappointed when they added "May" to Tractor Beams ... Just to appease the winners

It's whining to discuss rules, in a rules forum? Without the "may" in the Tractor Beam Token rules, there's a number of questions that need to be answered.:

"If there are no legal forced moves, what happens then?"

"If I try to make my opponent boost but he finds that it is not a legal move, have I met the mandatory requirement of the card since I've picked between boost or barrel roll?"

There's no evidence that the game designers let threads change their decisions. They may read them to more fully understand what community members find confusing about the rules and to help catch editing mistakes but I don't have any illusion that the more I argue about why I think something is right (or wrong) that it makes it any more likely that the FFG designers are going to read these forums and reverse their decision in an attempt to appease me.

YES OMG THIS

_{As mentioned previous - this is an email ruling and is not official. And, again as mentioned earlier, this is likely to not be the final ruling. Until this hits an FAQ I will not be playing it that way.}

I never was a strong believe that you could use Gonk twice in a round even if it is for different things. Would it have been better worded as an action that had two possible outcomes? Perhaps but that still would have had its own complications and confused people. As two actions Gonk is pretty simple as it is either in charge or recharge function but as one action you'd have just as much trouble, if not more, getting everyone to realize that you can't do both with a single action.

If you put 2 actions on one card that could have been worded as one action allowing a choice between 2 effects, then I do not understand why these must now be considered one action. Add to that that you need another unique card for this to even be a thing.

I think Franks went and did a fast one on this, without thinking it through. Lets hope the next FAQ has a proper ruling on this. Or FFG might just Errata the card into a single action.

RIP Gonk 2016-2016.

First, the thread didn't sway Frank. I submitted the rule query about 3 weeks ago. Frank has abviously thought about (and probably discussed with Alex and fellow DESIGNERS OF THE CARD) about how they intended it to work before replying.

Second, There are other positives to this card compared to the other regen cards:
1) You can bank an unlimited number of shields for future recovery. No other regen card does this.
2) To recover the shield, you are not limited to green moves (like R2-D2), or remaining in attack range (Miranda).
3) You can get the shield back in the action step (unlike r5-p9 where often end of turn is to late to survive for just one more shot).
4) It's cheaper than both those droids.

As two why it was worded like it is. Maybe it was an attempt to be clearer as we've seen the confusion in the past when several conditionals are combined in to one effect (Autothrusters anyone?).

For supporting evidence that has led to this conclusion, check the wording in the FAQ entries for:

Daredevil:
'A ship that performs the Daredevil action ...'

Expert Handling:
'If a ship attempts to perform an Expert Handling
action...'

Marksmanship:
'After a ship performs the Marksmanship action ...'

It's just never needed to be formalised until now.

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.

100% agreed.

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

Honestly, though, having played "Gonk" on Kath for a while, the times when you want to use both actions are pretty rare.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I say "both actions"?

It's that if he intended it to work the way that email says, why write it the way it's written?

That's the part I don't get. I mean I get the RAI, but it would of been fairly simple to have RAW and RAI match up in this case.

They've even done it before, just look at the WED-15 Repair Droid.