I would like to know what other cards allow you to use them twice in a round ?

There are plenty of them. The better question is how many cards have things on them that take an action to use that you can utilize multiple times during a round. There are ways (PtL) to get a second action off of a ship's Action Bar but seems to be it.

To me, the issue is if they're the same action, why format the card the way it is when there's precedent with other cards giving you an OR option? They created a problem that didn't exist by templating it that way.

Also don't mean to start any fires. Not trying to offend anyone.

You did not offend anyone. It is perfectly OK not agreeing with me .

Really though, you'll probably get 2 shields out of it, maybe more. 2 shields is EASILY worth 2 points. So, is it really a big issue?

You are missing my point entirely. The big issue is not the strength of the card, but the inconsistency between the established rules, and the FFG ruling on Gonk.

You can only ever do any one action once per round... How can that gain you two shields?

Not in a single turn. 2+ shields per game is easily worth 2 points.

It doesn't seem to make sense to get to use them both in one turn but I don't see it being game changing to allow it.. Personally I stack damage not defense so I'll probably never use it myself

Nowhere in the rules does it refer to actions without an icon by name.

The rules are quite clear that as an action you can perform an effects with the action header.

You can't performance the same action twice, but there are to distinct acton headers on the card. So executing the first does not mean I executed the other. So using EI I should legally be allowed to use the second.

What happens the next time FFG comes up with a card that has 2 actions that they think are ok to use together with EI?

If they want the effects to be mutually exclusive, then errata the card. Don't just say something that conflicts with the rules

Nowhere in the rules does it refer to actions without an icon by name.

The rules are quite clear that as an action you can perform an effects with the action header.

You can't performance the same action twice, but there are to distinct acton headers on the card. So executing the first does not mean I executed the other. So using EI I should legally be allowed to use the second.

What happens the next time FFG comes up with a card that has 2 actions that they think are ok to use together with EI?

If they want the effects to be mutually exclusive, then errata the card. Don't just say something that conflicts with the rules

They have been strict about the names of things before. See also: 2 ships with X-wing in their names, 2 ships with TIE Fighter, 2 ships with TIE Advanced, and things that do and don't work with each.

The FAQ mentions other action cards as "The Marksmanship Action," "The Expert Handling Action," etc. Both of these are the "Gonk Action." No argument that the card is worded poorly, as if it were not, this would be a non-issue. However, both are the "Gonk Action", and the "Gonk Action" has two effects that can be triggered, IE Boost and Barrel Roll.

No these are Gonk Bank Action and Gonk Withdraw Action, if you want to name them. They are 2 different actions. The rules say they are.

Nowhere in the rules does it refer to actions without an icon by name.

The rules are quite clear that as an action you can perform an effects with the action header.

You can't performance the same action twice, but there are to distinct acton headers on the card. So executing the first does not mean I executed the other. So using EI I should legally be allowed to use the second.

What happens the next time FFG comes up with a card that has 2 actions that they think are ok to use together with EI?

If they want the effects to be mutually exclusive, then errata the card. Don't just say something that conflicts with the rules

They just make two separate cards.

The ruling could have went either way.

But even assuming FFG is going against the rules, which they're not, so what.

For once they're trying to make regen that's actually balanced. Just having someone do it every turn and pawn off the stress like some rebel 1 straight to victory Poe player would be annoying. I don't care whether or not it within the rules or by fiat, FFG made the right call.

I am not saying they shouldn't fix Gonk if they intended it to be one action.

All I am saying is that Franks mail is not the right way to do it, because it directly contradicts the rules set

I am not saying they shouldn't fix Gonk if they intended it to be one action.

All I am saying is that Franks mail is not the right way to do it, because it directly contradicts the rules set

That's a matter of perspective. Frank is seeing it as a "Gonk" action, regardless of which option you choose. So from that perspective, it's not a contradiction at all.

I bet 100 bucks this gets over turned in the faq. Frank makes terrible rulings. He let a get at fencing during deployment plot out all of his maneuvers and move his ships around to see where they'd be. This was then said to be illegal in the next faq.

Really though, you'll probably get 2 shields out of it, maybe more. 2 shields is EASILY worth 2 points. So, is it really a big issue?

You are missing my point entirely. The big issue is not the strength of the card, but the inconsistency between the established rules, and the FFG ruling on Gonk.

You can only ever do any one action once per round... How can that gain you two shields?

Not in a single turn. 2+ shields per game is easily worth 2 points.

It maybe only 2 points, but its 4 freaking actions. That takes 4 turns to do.

I hope its overturned. Its another example of FFG nerfing something that doesn't need nerfing in the first place.

Really though, you'll probably get 2 shields out of it, maybe more. 2 shields is EASILY worth 2 points. So, is it really a big issue?

You are missing my point entirely. The big issue is not the strength of the card, but the inconsistency between the established rules, and the FFG ruling on Gonk.

You can only ever do any one action once per round... How can that gain you two shields?

Not in a single turn. 2+ shields per game is easily worth 2 points.

It maybe only 2 points, but its 4 freaking actions. That takes 4 turns to do.

I hope its overturned. Its another example of FFG nerfing something that doesn't need nerfing in the first place.

It wouldn't be worth it if it cost 5 points and a stress TWICE for the same 2 shields anyway.

Wasn't nerfed, just clarified. So the card text is terrible. It's not the first time.

Two points and two actions for a shield. Slow roll it and to build a reserve and you could almost be looking at it as two points and an action for a shield. If you don't charge in and/or can disengage it will still allow you to rebuild shields lost.

Ugh,

I am not a fan of Franks ruling.

By Franks ruling, you would use Gonk (2 points) every other turn to regen a shield.

By RAW, you would use up E.I. (for a total of 2 + 3= 5 points) to regen a shield for the cost of 2 actions and a stress every turn. And then do a green maneuver next round and be predictable.

Really though, you'll probably get 2 shields out of it, maybe more. 2 shields is EASILY worth 2 points. So, is it really a big issue?

You are missing my point entirely. The big issue is not the strength of the card, but the inconsistency between the established rules, and the FFG ruling on Gonk.

You can only ever do any one action once per round... How can that gain you two shields?

Not in a single turn. 2+ shields per game is easily worth 2 points.

It maybe only 2 points, but its 4 freaking actions. That takes 4 turns to do.

I hope its overturned. Its another example of FFG nerfing something that doesn't need nerfing in the first place.

It wouldn't be worth it if it cost 5 points and a stress TWICE for the same 2 shields anyway.

Wasn't nerfed, just clarified. So the card text is terrible. It's not the first time.

True. I just wish FFG would get a little more clear with intent on its cards. Its wave 8, they should be pretty good by now.

I posted this in the attack Frank Brooks thread, but this ruling reminded me of this:

Hey, everyone knows you can still use Gonk + EI, right? You just do an action from your bar before the Gonk action, and you get a shield back every other turn. On that 4-LOM build, I'd argue that's the better way to play it, even if you could double-Gonk. If you're double-Gonking, you regenerate a shield every turn, and you get no offensive or defensive actions. If you instead take Evade -> Gonk every turn, you're regenerating a shield every other turn, and you're canceling one damage every turn. That's 1.5 damage canceled out every turn, instead of just 1. If you're ever not getting shot at, then take a target lock instead of an evade before you Gonk.

Seriously, am I missing something here? Unless you face nothing but TLTs, Evade -> Gonk is a tankier way to Gonk than double-Gonking.

(Gooooonk)

Yes, you can still EI into GONK off another action.

This is why I don;t think GONK is screwed up by this ruling, even though I don't think it's right - you're almost always going to be better off doing EI GONK to take a different action and bank early on, then a different action and regen later, rather than doing both in the same turn, unless you come to the point where you're out of banked shields. It's far better to have a focus and regen a shield, than just to regen a shield.

Ok, if you are 'double Gonking' you are clearly desperate and have run out of banked shield tokens, shame on you for playing g so poorly.

Next, Gonk is an upgrade card with two Action: headers. The rules define actions as those little icons on the pilot cards and as the text with Action: headers on upgrade and damage cards. The faqs might give 'names' to these actions but the actions have not defined to have or need names other than the Icon actions. At any rate, even if both actions on the Gonk card had the same 'name' of Gonk they are still seperate actions, since the rules state no Action can be taken twice, and actions are not defined by names, only icons and action headers.

Lastly, if they were intended to be the same action, ONE Action: header with OR should have been used, like the treadwell card.

Sorry Frank, there's thousands of players out there better than me that can rules lawyer you down every day.

I posted this in the attack Frank Brooks thread, but this ruling reminded me of this:

Used the same image on our facebook page to let our gamer's know Frank Brooks is throwing wrenches as us again!

I am honestly surprised by all of this.

Once we got the card, every one in our club saw it as two separate actions. No one questioned that you could do them both in the same turn using other cards as it looked completely cut and dry. Two separate actions, with two separate headers that do two different things.

As has been stated previously it costs two action activations, one stress and 5 points to accomplish, so this doesn’t seem overpowered at all and indeed even lends credence to RAW being RAI. You need to look no further than the WED-15 Repair Droid for how that wording is different.

You shouldn't be surprised.

Another post pointed out how if Vader had two of the same criticals that required an Action to turn face down he could still only turn one of them over each round despite having two actions to spend and two different cards. Maybe you'll argue that it's the same action in two different places but is it?

You shouldn't be surprised.

Another post pointed out how if Vader had two of the same criticals that required an Action to turn face down he could still only turn one of them over each round despite having two actions to spend and two different cards. Maybe you'll argue that it's the same action in two different places but is it?

Bad example. Vader has two copies of the SAME damage cards, not two differentieret ones. They are the same action.

If he had two different crits that had action headers he could do both.

FAQ using 'marksmanship action', ect., are examples of upgrade cards with one action header, and obviously use the title of the card as shorthand for the action on those cards instead of saying 'the change one eye result to a crit and all others to hits during attacks in this round' action.

The Gonk card has two action headers and two seperate actions. Call them Gonk A and Gonk B actions if you must.

The end.