Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
InterceptorMad

You can no longer double-Gonk

Recommended Posts

Instead of saying you can or can't... Give reasons why you feel that it should work one way or the other..  On the card there isn't an "or " between the 2 options suggesting that it could be possible to use both in the same turn.  I reread the rules and gave it a lot of thought over the last few days... spending two actions in one round to gain one shield seems wasteful. Attacking is always better than defending. I would rather see the game progress than see so many errata come out.  The game designers are doing well and could do with some constructive input.  I would take a critical hit or boosting out of someones fire arc over a shield at the cost of two actions any time. So I say use up your actions..      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit when I first saw the card, I thought "that's confusing putting two "Action:" headers on it". But I still read it as you would be performing a "Gonk" action regardless of which option you took. So the email doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is the over-reaction by some that it's so wrong and now broken. At the end of the day, Gonk isn't anything special. He's just a walking battery after all.

 

I think the use of two "Action:" headers was the source of most of the confusion, and like the rest of the community, I'm at a loss as to why they chose that format for this card. I would have hoped they would at least tried to keep it simple. The intent was for one or the other, not both. So why didn't they word the card in that fashion. It's got me stumped. I'm wondering if there might be someone new dreaming up some of these newer cards, because lately there's been a more than a few issues with wording that have needed to be cleared up almost immediately.

 

I think we'll see this one with an errata in the next FAQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure we will see a errata on it... We will soon choke on errata... Think of new players and when you show them the rule book they get excited.. Then you show them the encyclopedia of errata... Talk about scaring new players away..  This is my new Soap Box (example).. They had to add  "May" to the tractor beam card for forced movement.. No one had any complaints about free movement for decloaking  but there heads almost exploded with mandatory movement for tractor Beam... It was perfect as it stood and under form pressure changed it to add "may"

 I choked when I saw that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure we will see a errata on it... We will soon choke on errata... Think of new players and when you show them the rule book they get excited.. Then you show them the encyclopedia of errata... Talk about scaring new players away..  This is my new Soap Box (example).. They had to add  "May" to the tractor beam card for forced movement.. No one had any complaints about free movement for decloaking  but there heads almost exploded with mandatory movement for tractor Beam... It was perfect as it stood and under form pressure changed it to add "may"

 I choked when I saw that one.

I failed to see all the "forum pressure". Just how many threads complaining about the mandatory movement did it take to become "forum pressure"?

 

Personally I think the inclusion of "may" has actually helped it, not hindered it. If a poor manoeuvre left the target already on an asteroid and unable to shoot back, why would you want to help him by tractoring him off and thus giving him the opportunity to return fire?

 

I think the biggest issue is the fact that these newer pilot, upgrade and reference cards aren't really being worded properly to start with. They shouldn't need to add errata to the FAQ immediately after (or even before) their release. They need to come up with these things and then bounce them off someone who can read them like the average gamer would, and then they might pick up the confusing content well before release time.

 

It's quite difficult to write game rules, and as an author, trust me, I know. You can read something over and over and know exactly what you think it should do, but sometimes another person will read it quite differently. FFG need to write these damned things in such a way as they don't need to come with an explanation. Just keep it simple!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

both actions are “Gonk” actions, 

what can I say?

GONK!

 

 

 

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.

RAI triumphs!

so far the only fail I've seen is automated protocols on Huge ships xD

Leebo manically laughs

Edited by Warpman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the shiiiiiit?!

 

 

So anything that appears on the card has the same name as the card? So we no longer say "drop a bomb" as an action, we have to say we perform the "Conner Net" action or the "Cluster Mines" action... 

 

 

RAI triumphs!

ry 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.

so far the only fail I've seen is automated protocols on Huge ships xD

Leebo manically laughs

 

 

The whole Ship-type only rules for upgrades being expanded to also include abilities via a FAQ without any new rules was pretty baffling.

 

How the heck are we supposed to know what RAI is all the time when it so often contradicts RAW?

The refusal for them to define abbreviations, while passing a ruling on the Tie Advanced Prototype is causing even more problems with Epic and the Raider class Corv.

Edited by Vulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

RAI triumphs!

so far the only fail I've seen is automated protocols on Huge ships xD

Leebo manically laughs

 

The whole Ship-type only rules for upgrades being expanded to also include abilities via a FAQ without any new rules was pretty baffling.

 

How the heck are we supposed to know what RAI is all the time when it so often contradicts RAW?

The refusal for them to define abbreviations, while passing a ruling on the Tie Advanced Prototype is causing even more problems with Epic and the Raider class Corv.

nah, I'm speaking of wording given to Protocols. Free action. Huge ships, you know...

 

That's what FAQ s for

to let us know how it was INTENDED TO BE READ

and how it's intended to be played

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure we will see a errata on it... We will soon choke on errata... Think of new players and when you show them the rule book they get excited.. Then you show them the encyclopedia of errata... Talk about scaring new players away..  This is my new Soap Box (example).. They had to add  "May" to the tractor beam card for forced movement.. No one had any complaints about free movement for decloaking  but there heads almost exploded with mandatory movement for tractor Beam... It was perfect as it stood and under form pressure changed it to add "may"

 I choked when I saw that one.

Decloaking is itself an optional effect. If you are unable or unwilling to perform the movement then you don't decloak. Because decloaking is optional, if the first direction that you declare isn't legal, you aren't forced to try every other possibility, we'd need a FAQ to clear up how to handle tractor beams in the same situation.

As a mandatory effect, Tractor Beam movement would have the same problem as Rebel Captive. Who's responsibility is it to make sure it happens? If you realize that your opponent didn't move you and you say nothing, are you cheating? Having it be an optional effect makes that easy to deal with as a missed opportunity.

I'm not sure why you are so passionate about having "may" added to the Tractor Beam token reference. It seems to have made the card more simple and straightforward to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

True. We could point to Miranda as another effect that's written that way. I think the difference is that both of those cards have the same format for both options: "Do W to X or do Y to Z." In other words, each option has a cost and an effect. It's unambiguous in English that each half of the sentence is mutually exclusive. The rewording of Gonk to "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)," doesn't have the same form. Instead, it's "Do X or do Y to Z." That is ambiguous in English - it can also be interpreted as making both X and Y (placing or removing the shield token) valid costs to pay for effect Z.

 

Yes, that reading would make the shield tokens going on and off the card pointless, and most people would figure that the other reading is the intended one. I'm just trying to explain why I think they went with the formatting that they did.

 

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.

 

This is true. I'm not saying that the boost rules provide a precedent that we could've used to interpret Gonk the way that Frank's ruling does. I was just making the limited point that we already have actions in X-Wing that have different "flavors" but the same name, and both actions being "Gonk" actions doesn't mean that you should be able to both with a single action, like thespaceinvader suggested.

 

So the email doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is the over-reaction by some that it's so wrong and now broken.

 

I can understand being disappointed in a ruling, but I can't remember a time that an official ruling from a designer was met with, "Nope, that's wrong, I'm not playing it that way." I mean, it's possible the people saying that just play casually, in which case, cool, more power to you. But in a tournament?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't nerfed, this is just how it works. I was in the camp of "one name one action," and that you can't use both. Not surprised this is how it works.

It IS limited compared to other regen options, but it's cheaper. EASILY still worth the cost and it CAN save you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't nerfed, this is just how it works. I was in the camp of "one name one action," and that you can't use both. Not surprised this is how it works.

It IS limited compared to other regen options, but it's cheaper. EASILY still worth the cost and it CAN save you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't nerfed, this is just how it works. I was in the camp of "one name one action," and that you can't use both. Not surprised this is how it works.

It IS limited compared to other regen options, but it's cheaper. EASILY still worth the cost and it CAN save you.

The problem is not because it is "nerfed" or "limited" or "broken". The problem is that this ruling goes directly against the written rules. Most of the time you can resolve difficult card effects by carefully reading the rules and using basic logic. Using this approach to the Gonk card, leads you the the conclusion that these are  two separate actions. 

 

How am I supposed to resolve tricky upgrade cards in the future, if I cannot trust the rulebook and the card wording? From now, anyone can interpret the cards any way they want, because the wording of the card and the rules in the reference guide apparently does not matter at all. That is a BIG problem.

Edited by Ubul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It wasn't nerfed, this is just how it works. I was in the camp of "one name one action," and that you can't use both. Not surprised this is how it works.

It IS limited compared to other regen options, but it's cheaper. EASILY still worth the cost and it CAN save you.

The problem is not because it is "nerfed" or "limited" or "broken". The problem is that this ruling goes directly against the written rules. Most of the time you can resolve difficult card effects by carefully reading the rules and using basic logic. Using this approach to the Gonk card, leads you the the conclusion that these are  two separate actions. 

 

How am I supposed to resolve tricky upgrade cards in the future, if I cannot trust the rulebook and the card wording? From now, anyone can interpret the cards any way they want, because the wording of the card and the rules in the reference guide apparently does not matter at all. That is a BIG problem.

 

 

This is the problem we always face when new things show up. Until there is some sort of precedent for something that doesn't fit into the rules just one way, completely reasonable people can end up with opposing interpretations. Previously, we have never needed to know whether it's the "Action:" that needs to be different, or the name on the card that provides that header. Gonk creates the precedent and future upgrades with a similar format will be easy to interpret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to rulings, I try to just focus on the can's and not the should's - in my opinion EI Gonk would be an over costed and tactically restrictive option, but if it is an option, well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Previously, we have never needed to know whether it's the "Action:" that needs to be different, or the name on the card that provides that header. Gonk creates the precedent and future upgrades with a similar format will be easy to interpret.

My point is: Despite we did not need to know how double Action header works, we actually knew that, because the rules reference is very clear on that. They designed a card, which works a particular way within the existing rules, and then overruled it to work in a different way. It would have been really easy to word the card in a way, where it fits the rules and works the way that it does not allow you to double Gonk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sure we will see a errata on it... We will soon choke on errata... Think of new players and when you show them the rule book they get excited.. Then you show them the encyclopedia of errata... Talk about scaring new players away..  This is my new Soap Box (example).. They had to add  "May" to the tractor beam card for forced movement.. No one had any complaints about free movement for decloaking  but there heads almost exploded with mandatory movement for tractor Beam... It was perfect as it stood and under form pressure changed it to add "may"

 I choked when I saw that one.

I failed to see all the "forum pressure". Just how many threads complaining about the mandatory movement did it take to become "forum pressure"?

 

Personally I think the inclusion of "may" has actually helped it, not hindered it. If a poor manoeuvre left the target already on an asteroid and unable to shoot back, why would you want to help him by tractoring him off and thus giving him the opportunity to return fire?

 

I think the biggest issue is the fact that these newer pilot, upgrade and reference cards aren't really being worded properly to start with. They shouldn't need to add errata to the FAQ immediately after (or even before) their release. They need to come up with these things and then bounce them off someone who can read them like the average gamer would, and then they might pick up the confusing content well before release time.

 

It's quite difficult to write game rules, and as an author, trust me, I know. You can read something over and over and know exactly what you think it should do, but sometimes another person will read it quite differently. FFG need to write these damned things in such a way as they don't need to come with an explanation. Just keep it simple!

 

I like the way you put it and think that sets up a grand Idea... Have Beta testing on line just to get outside input .. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not arguing that the card is worded poorly. Just that it makes sense that your can only Gonk once. The FAQ discusses other Action cards as "The Marksmanship Action." This is no different. It's just the Gonk action. Two choices when you Gonk, just like when you Boost or Barrel Roll. Can only Gonk once.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

From the top of my head: Tactician, Sensor Jammer, Darth Vader crew, Dengar, Predator, Attani Mindlink, Lone Wolf, Wired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...