tech7 said:

It hasn't caused any problem and very little confusion in the other games that use the same effect. And playing a tactic that becomes another card is just as intuitive as another card that has text that lets it get played as a tactic. I'd make the argument that it is more so because we understand that the norm for the game is that other cards are put into play during a specific phase and only trigger their abilities when in play. Having to check your supports as well as your tactics for effects to trigger from hand is not intuitive. A tactic that you play that you then read the effect and do what it says, including leaving it in play is easy to understand and intuitive to play.

Really it is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other.

vermillian said:

Actually the fact that rules specifically say that supports, quests, and units are put into play in one of your three zones, and it noticeably does not mention tactics (the only card type not mentioned) is pretty telling. Also when it talks about playing tactics it uses the phrase play not put into play, which again is a noticeable departure from the previous language used to describe what is done with the three other card types. I don't believe there is any evidence to support that tactics ever enter play or are played into zones. Can you find something that says there is that I missed? Can you find something that implies that they are? If so please give the page and quote the relevant section so we can compare them. If there isn't but the pages, quotes, and logic I used are not enough to make a convincing case, I'd suggest sending it to Nate.

tech7 said:

You wouldn't need it to become an attachment for that though. You could have the exact same effect with a regular tactic, "Action: Target unit gains Counterstrike 2 until the end of the Phase." There is no real benefit in this game for such an ability to be persistent outside of the Battlefield Phase unless it is going to be a "permanent " effect so end of the phase makes more sense and follows the general way tactics already work (those which give or take away power icons and the like).

The question is really which is going to be easier for people to wrap their brains around a card whose activation is exactly how you would expect it to be but whose continued state is altered, or one who activation is altered but whose continual state is exactly how you would expect. I would say the activation, I've already seen people forget to trigger effects that are handled normally, I can easily see that becoming an even bigger factor with a card that activates differently than others of its type.

Though there is one more major difference between these two ways of creating this effect... a support that can be triggered fro hand would also be able to be payed for and put into play normally, which means there is no situational effect associated with playing the card. This would mean the effect itself should have to be somewhat weaker because the player would have access to it at anytime they want and multiple ways of getting that effect into play to ensure it doesn't become unbalanced. A tactic could not enter play except following the trigger restrictions which because it was situational could be of a stronger variety.

Here is a card that exists in Thrones that I have modified for W:I, "Action: when an opponent is attacking you choose a target defending unit. That unit gains Counterstrike 2. Then attach this card to an Empire unit (counts as a attachment support with the text "Attached character gains 1 Power icon").
It is based on an event card their exact counterpart to W:I's tactic cards.

You're right dormouse, my example wasn't really useful. After reading your modified AGoT card, I understand how a tactic can work differently from a traditional support card.

I wouldn't say it isn't useful. Having permanent cards that "jump" into play is a great idea, and there are a number of games that use it. They are just serve a somewhat different purpose than a tactic that is played which then remains in play as something else.

Just got a reply from Nate French (from FFG) regarding this loyalty issue.

And his reply (to my OP) was:

"No -- tactics are played and go to the discard pile, and you only reduce loyalty cost by counting the symbol on cards in play. "

(P/s- I had to send my question in to FFG because my friend was being so persistent about this loyalty symbol being an issue , despite all the good explanations here. I hope he's happy now. )

If he was really arguing the point I doubt he is happy, but I suspect he is satisfied.

spot on, dormouse! He wasn't happy when he got to know about that reply, but indeed, he is satisfied.

cheers.