Does the loyalty symbol on tactics card count towards loyalty cost of a unit or support cards?

Well considering they are discarded as soon as they are used they would not help with the loyalty cost of other cards.

This is actually a pretty decent questions . . . since timing can be kind of tricky.

Take for example "We's Bigga" when it drops down it causes the new card to be played for one less. Would this card completely resolve and be gone before it's loyalty symbol can be factored or will it sit out to check the legality of the unit card you are playing before fully resolving?

I thought the "We'z Bigga!" allowed the next unit card played to cost one less. The card isn't immediately played, it's played as your next action (or at least the next action you use to pay for a unit).

mylastnerv said:

Nice! Just the example i wanted to talk about. So does the loyalty symbol on "We'z bigga" count towards the new unit's loyalty cost (apart from being able to be played for one less)? My friend and I had an argument about this during one of our playing sessions. I said it should't count and he said it should. Sigh.

We'z bigga would still leave play though, it just means the next Orc card played costs one less. So it's loyalty would not count.

Get ready for this:

Page 11. "its loyalty cost (the number of loyalty icons under the printed cost minus the number of matching race symbols the player controls in play)"

So if a Tactic card is controlled (it is, see Control in advanced concepts) and in play then we get to use their lingering abilities.

Page 15 Actions: Read this whole section. They mention that Units, Quests, and Support cards must be in play to use their abilities. Tactics may be played from your hand... this is one piece of evidence supporting that Tactics are not in play.

That's about all I've got.

Logic from other card game's status of 'temporary cards' like this suggest that tactic cards are NOT in play.

Please use logic when negotiating rules as well, if the rules are not specified in exacting detail.

For instance the game also does not say that you can just stand up and declare the game a tie at any time, or that you may pick your cards up and concede the game to another player. The rules don't say what 'own' really either amongst many other things...

Exactly, I didn't have my rulebook handy so thanks Vermillian.

Tactic cards are played they are never put into play (or at least no tactic becomes another type of card which is put into play) as such their loyalty icon is never counted towards the loyalty total.

dormouse i do want it understood that i can't really find that piece of info.... oddly enough

That is fine . . . . it is just odd to me why they even print the large Loyalty Icon on the right hand side of the card in the first place . . . . just leaving that little bit off the card would of made this a "non-issue" . . . .

Thanks for pulling up actual text in the rules. I didn't have a book near me at the time of replying.

Oh, and for the record . . . an official FAQ would be lovely . . . . can't believe they are about to be on their third battlepack with no FAQ on the base set . . .

mylastnerv said:

That was what my friend said when we argued about whether the loyalty symbol on tactic cards should count towards the loyalty cost of a unit /support cards or not.

Anyways, thank you for your replies. Really appreciate all of them, especially the ones from dormouse and vermillian.

mylastnerv said:

So if there was no loyalty icon on the tactic then it must be a neutral tactic, right. The icon is there so you can tell what faction the card belongs to.

Without the loyalty icon it would not be an Orc, Dark Elf or Empire card. That is all they are there for. No FAQ needed for this one.

First - it is technically not a loyalty icon, but as mkultra said, a faction icon, or as identified in the rulebook, a race symbol.

Second - a tactic is played from hand (page 6) not played into one of the three zones (page 10). Since the only areas considered in play are those three zones of your capitol board (they are the only areas where abilities work without specific text otherwise, the only areas were power icons are counted and the only area where cards can be put into play) a tactic can never be in play hence its inability to add a loyalty icon (even if you lay the card on the table as a visual representation of the effect and its place in the action chain).

It may be easier to call them faction symbols (which they are), and rely on the fact that they also happen to award loyalty for being permanents when they stick around.

You also never know when mechanically the Dev's may want to leave room for something zany like when a tactic remains in play (and becomes a permanent) for whatever reason down the road.

dormouse said:

The way you just broke it down right here . . . makes perfect sense. I will from no on be copying this explanation.

Prob easiest way to explain it if it crops up as an issue.

I fully expect at some point a tactic that after has its effect resolved becomes a unit or a support of the attachment variety. The difference will be though it will say something to the effect of "then attach this tactic o a target unit and it gains, "blah blah blah" and is considered a support card."

dormouse said:

I don't think so, it is imo better to design such a card as a support card that can be played at any time a tactic can be played. The reason is, in that case the card only contradicts the rules the moment it is played. After that it is just a normal support card. If you make an tactic that can be attached to a unit and counts as a support card, it contradicts the rules as long as it remains in play. Both version have the same effect if you word it correctly, but, imo, the first version is more intuitive.

BTW I do not support the information that the rules say that a tactic is not played in to a zone. It says that they are played from the hand, it never really says that they are put in to play or not put in to play. Just that they are played, and that after they are played they are discarded. If there is an interum (which there might be to some that might interpret the rules) like, WHILE the card is resolving, there is no mention as to where the card is during that time frame.

Again OTHER TCGs make one believe that it is in no zone. That is all.

mylastnerv said:

Is there a large scale tournament structure that needs a FAQ ASAP? Until such a high stakes thing exists, the rules exist, and they do a fairly good job of explaining how things work. FAQs and tournament rules are really only needed if the game has high tournament aspirations, which this game might not have.

vermillian said:

Agreed, well said.

True . . . but FFG normally does FAQs for most of their games and most aren't intended to be "tourney" level high stakes matches. It'd just be nice to hear some official word from time to time to chime in and clarify what may be hazy.

Didn't think that was asking to much.

mylastnerv said:

But we do get that. The link at the bottom of this page brings up a form and a significant number of them get answered within a week or two.