They flip-flop-flip-flap-flop... flip-flap-flippity-flop!

Screw this new faq... I ain't gonna chase after these continual game changes no mores!

It was never errata'd in the first place. That email made zero sense.

And it still hasn't received an errata.

Yup. I'm totally nitpicking that FAQ entries aren't the same thing as errata,

I feel ya on this one. Once played a player who tried to convince me that a ship which has yet to activate receives no ion tokens when hit by a Conner net because the FAQ reference does not mention it receiving ion tokens. I told him the FAQ was just a clarification and that the physical card specifically states the ship receives the ion tokens. He said the FAQ over ruled the card. I had to explain to him the difference between an errata and a FAQ reference...

While you're technically correct (and that's the best kind), his ship just loses the ion tokens once it performs the maneuver on its dial anyway, so effectively the result of doing it his way is the same as not putting them (except if you happen to have Dace Bonearm in your list or something).

This is incorrect. He retains the ion tokens until the next round, where he then performs the 1 straight maneuver as if ionized, and then removes them. Ion tokens cannot be cleared without performing an ionized 1 straight maneuver. Period.

The discussion was already had here for anyone interested. ForgottenLore got it right eventually for us.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/222982-conner-net-confusion/

Thanks for the clarification, I obviously missed all the threads. Naturally I'll spread the info in my group and we'll follow it, but it looks like it's all based on an email from Frank just like Gonk was before he finally appeared in the FAQ today (edit) and the Zeb-crew/Dengar interaction

It's an email from Frank that pretty much made it into the FAQ:

FAQ, pg 12:

Thanks for the clarification, I obviously missed all the threads. Naturally I'll spread the info in my group and we'll follow it, but it looks like it's all based on an email from Frank just like Gonk was before he finally appeared in the FAQ today (edit) and the Zeb-crew/Dengar interaction

It's an email from Frank that pretty much made it into the FAQ:

FAQ, pg 12:

"Conner Net

If a Conner Net is dropped overlapping a ship and

immediately detonates, and that ship has not yet

activated this phase, that ship executes the maneuver

on its dial as normal and skips its “Perform Action”

step. If a Conner Net is dropped overlapping a ship and

immediately detonates, and that ship has activated

this round, that ship suffers the effects of being ionized

next turn and does not skip any “Perform Action” step.

If a ship is ionized, executes its [1] maneuver, and

overlaps a Conner Net, all ion tokens are discarded at

the end of the maneuver (including those received from

Conner Net)."

I don't want to get this debate started here when it's already been beaten to death in other threads, but if reading the FAQ doesn't clarify whether or not you lose the ion tokens after performing the maneuver (which is, by my understanding, the source of the debate), then it's not clear enough.

Thanks for the clarification, I obviously missed all the threads. Naturally I'll spread the info in my group and we'll follow it, but it looks like it's all based on an email from Frank just like Gonk was before he finally appeared in the FAQ today (edit) and the Zeb-crew/Dengar interaction

It's an email from Frank that pretty much made it into the FAQ:

FAQ, pg 12:

"Conner Net

If a Conner Net is dropped overlapping a ship and

immediately detonates, and that ship has not yet

activated this phase, that ship executes the maneuver

on its dial as normal and skips its “Perform Action”

step. If a Conner Net is dropped overlapping a ship and

immediately detonates, and that ship has activated

this round, that ship suffers the effects of being ionized

next turn and does not skip any “Perform Action” step.

If a ship is ionized, executes its [1] maneuver, and

overlaps a Conner Net, all ion tokens are discarded at

the end of the maneuver (including those received from

Conner Net)."

I don't want to get this debate started here when it's already been beaten to death in other threads, but if reading the FAQ doesn't clarify whether or not you lose the ion tokens after performing the maneuver (which is, by my understanding, the source of the debate), then it's not clear enough.

Why would you lose the tokens? There's nothing in the rules that would suggest that you do. In the absence of something directing you to not follow the normal rules, the normal rules apply.

If Gonk wasn't scum only I'd pair him with Oicunn to bonk and Gonk.

If Gonk wasn't scum only I'd pair him with Oicunn to bonk and Gonk.

Dang. "Goinking" just needs to be a thing. Indeed unfortunate Gonk is Scum only if only for this reason.

stress for shield also takes up a mod slot so no EU for large ships. (I guess you could say it is a Gonxit )

Thanks for the clarification, I obviously missed all the threads. Naturally I'll spread the info in my group and we'll follow it, but it looks like it's all based on an email from Frank just like Gonk was before he finally appeared in the FAQ today (edit) and the Zeb-crew/Dengar interaction

It's an email from Frank that pretty much made it into the FAQ:

FAQ, pg 12:

"Conner Net

If a Conner Net is dropped overlapping a ship and

immediately detonates, and that ship has not yet

activated this phase, that ship executes the maneuver

on its dial as normal and skips its “Perform Action”

step. If a Conner Net is dropped overlapping a ship and

immediately detonates, and that ship has activated

this round, that ship suffers the effects of being ionized

next turn and does not skip any “Perform Action” step.

If a ship is ionized, executes its [1] maneuver, and

overlaps a Conner Net, all ion tokens are discarded at

the end of the maneuver (including those received from

Conner Net)."

I don't want to get this debate started here when it's already been beaten to death in other threads, but if reading the FAQ doesn't clarify whether or not you lose the ion tokens after performing the maneuver (which is, by my understanding, the source of the debate), then it's not clear enough.

Why would you lose the tokens? There's nothing in the rules that would suggest that you do. In the absence of something directing you to not follow the normal rules, the normal rules apply.

I understand how it works now, but pretty much every player I know personally has been doing it wrongly for the last few months. "Normal rules apply" doesn't really mean anything when before we got Connor Nets there was no way for a ship with two ion tokens to get a dial assigned.

Want to carry this on in private? I feel like we've (I've?) derailed the thread.

Previously the ruling was that you weren't allowed to perform both actions on one turn, because they were on the same card. Now however:

Both actions on “Gonk” are different actions. A ship

equipped with “Gonk” can perform both actions during a

round if it has the ability to perform multiple actions.

Which enables the Experimental Interface combo after all. General consensus was that the combo was too expensive and restrictive anyways, but could there be a place for it?

still sucks compared to Rebel regen

yes, the same regern that curretly sucks itself

sooo

GONK

The FAQ should say that if you don't shout "GONK!" while performing a Gonk Action, then it doesn't count.

I think the swear filter should change Gonk to Gonk.

Oh wait. It does! lol

I think the swear filter should change Gonk to Gonk.

Oh wait. It does! lol

Droids have such foul mouths. Take a look at R2-D2, nothing but bleeps gonks.

One more reason don't trust "email" rulings. Almost every one has been wrong. Starting to wonder were these emails come from.

One more reason don't trust "email" rulings. Almost every one has been wrong. Starting to wonder were these emails come from.

It's all about communication, especially with public relations. There is great emphasis on official and unofficial communications in the business world. Dealing with multiple person entities like companies just hearing something from an employee or even a supervisor or board member is not enough. Official communications is communications from the company as a whole, not just someone who happens to be from the inside. That why things like memorandums and press statements have been made. Often time communications have to go through internal checks to ensure that the message is exactly what the company wants to be communicating with the outside.

Emails from FFG have always and should be considered unofficial. They haven't gone through all the internal checks to be finalized even if it might be what is to come later. If you want the official word go to the FAQ, there it should have been proof read and approved by someone with authority from FFG to be released (although the dates on the July 1st one might be slightly confusing ).

Clarify it pls:

It was/is allowed to use both actions in one turn right , so PTL or EI work with it , right , because of two different GONK actions , right?

RIGHT or WRONG?

I think the swear filter should change Gonk to Gonk.

Oh wait. It does! lol

Hold on, we are on to something there! FFG, please change your profanity filter from the boring generic **** to GONK!

Clarify it pls:

It was/is allowed to use both actions in one turn right , so PTL or EI work with it , right , because of two different GONK actions , right?

RIGHT or WRONG?

With EI yes, PtL no. Due to the wording on the cards, PtL only allows the second action to be one from your action bar (so no PtLing multiple crits), EI allows action header upgrades only.

One more reason don't trust "email" rulings. Almost every one has been wrong. Starting to wonder were these emails come from.

There's been, to my knowledge, three of them. One on Oicunn, one on Slam, and this one. The email I got about Oicunn was correct, and so was the one posted in the forums about slam. This is the first that's been wrong that I know of, and I didn't know it existed before this thread. Emailing the creators of the game for clarification should never be discounted. Afterall, how else are we going to get FA in our FAQ to begin with?

One more reason don't trust "email" rulings. Almost every one has been wrong. Starting to wonder were these emails come from.

There's been, to my knowledge, three of them. One on Oicunn, one on Slam, and this one. The email I got about Oicunn was correct, and so was the one posted in the forums about slam. This is the first that's been wrong that I know of, and I didn't know it existed before this thread. Emailing the creators of the game for clarification should never be discounted. Afterall, how else are we going to get FA in our FAQ to begin with?

There are many, many more then just those 3, I don't remember then all cause, like I said, most turn out to be over ruled via FAQ.

I think the swear filter should change Gonk to Gonk.

Oh wait. It does! lol

Hold on, we are on to something there! FFG, please change your profanity filter from the boring generic **** to GONK!

Why in the GONKing GONK hasn't this been done already?

One more reason don't trust "email" rulings. Almost every one has been wrong. Starting to wonder were these emails come from.

That's not accurate. I haven't been tracking them for very long but since I've been maintaining a thread with email rulings I've collected 9 rulings. 7 of the responses made it into FAQ updates. 1 email response was overturned by a FAQ update, but that ruling relied on a FAQ entry that changed. Of the 9, the Gonk ruling is the only one that ended up being a complete reversal.

That's not too bad, especially considering there are a number of things that make it into the FAQ that ended up getting reversed by later FAQ versions.

I think the swear filter should change Gonk to Gonk.

Oh wait. It does! lol

Hold on, we are on to something there! FFG, please change your profanity filter from the boring generic **** to GONK!

Why in the GONKing GONK hasn't this been done already?

I'd accept that or "UTINNI!"