That's all well and good but the book also says locations are unique. Unique is described as a mechanic which allows only one copy of a given card in play under your control at any given time.

Put the two together and you have an unclear situation which requires a detailed explanation of the game mechanics such as offered by Alex. This is hardly the kind of information you'd want to put in the basic rulebook.

Simply not calling locations "unique" would remove all confusion as indeed there would be no reason to suspect you have to KO a duplicate location in response to anything other than flipping it.

As for cards taking precendence over rules, please quote the portion of Relocation's game text which states the stolen location is not subject to the uniqueness check.

I'll save you the trouble: it's not there.

Rules are meant to be broken, that IS infact 50% of the reason for them in CCG's. This is a case of breaking the rules, which is fine "by effect."

Relocation does not break the rules, it only appears to. Big difference. That's why the rulebook says that card which contradicts the rules always wins.

Witness Master Mold; it lets you play character cards from your resource row. That's a clear case of a card breaking the rules and it's also clear that the card is allowed to do so.

Nothing on Relocation says you can ignore the unique attribute of a location. Oddly enough, that's because you *can*. Unfortunately, the rulebook does not make this clear at all.

You can look at it anyway you wish, but if you are only allowed to control 1 "Unique" card on the Field at one time, and you can now control 2, you are loopholing your way around the rules.

It is an intended loophole, but a loophole nontheless. Reitterating the corperate fluff UDE puts out sometimes is of no use Zaxx, i've been dealing with UDE for far to long for that.

`{nova}

"Unique" is a poorly worded game mechanic and precisely because we are led to believe the above statement is true. In fact, it is not.

Here's what Alex Charsky's explanation of "unique" boils down to:

1) You may control any number of "unique" permanents with a given name.

2) You may put only one copy of a "unique" permanent with a given name into play.

The reason Relocation contains no text contradicting the rule on unique locations is because it's *not* contradicting the rule on unique locations.

No loophole required.

Unique does NOT mean you can't control more than one 'unique' card at the same time. Unique functions differently based on the type of card it is.

p. 9: "each player may have only 1 copy of a named character in play at a time, regardless of the character's version. When you recruit a character, put any other characters you control with the same name into your KO'd pile."

p. 10 "A few equipment cards are unique and follow the same rules as unique characters"

p. 11: "Like characters, locations are unique. When you flip a location, place any other location you control with the same name into your Ko'd pile."

1) There is no specific rule for the term 'unique'.

2) equipment SPECIFICALLY says to follow the same rules as characters. Locations do not.

3) Nowhere under locations does it say 'you cannot have more than one location of the same name in play at the same time." You can attempt to add an 'inference' onto the words, but simply put it just doesn't say those words. It CANNOT say them, because a face-down location IS STILL CONSIDERED TO BE IN PLAY, just not 'active' or under your 'control'.

Therefore, logic dictates that you CAN have more than one location in play at the same time, as long as it is not flipped from the resource row.

In fact, the example on p. 11 reads:

"Later in the game, if he would turn the location face up, ALL OTHER FACE-UP COPIES OF ASTEROID M HE ALREADY HAS IN PLAY would be placed in his Ko'd pile" (emphasis mine)

'All other face-up copies he has in play' shows that he CAN have more than one face-up location in play at the same time.

Cheers!
-Ben =)

Kergy the term 'play' refers to "activate" OR "active". A Location face-down in the Resource Row is NOT in 'in play'.

My point exactly, "in play" refers to "active", as face-downs would NOT be destroyed in this case. I don't see where you went with this arguement, but all the other copies are immediately sent to the KO'd pile, meaning you CAN"t have more than one 'in play', thus all others are sent to the KO'd pile.

If you guys want to sit here and argue, debate, discuss, with justifications of the differences ...go right ahead.

This is NOT 'influencing' the words. The Location "uniqueness" specifically points to Character and Equipment "uniqueness" with an extra tidbit. But the meaning has not changed. Seems to me, that it is not me who is trying to 'influence' the words here.

At any rate...the "Unique" rule makes sense to me, and i am not trying to oppose it in any way. So lets just leave it at that.

`{nova}

One word, multiple definitions. Do you have something from UDE to support this theory?

Read the example on page 11: "Later in the game, if he would turn the location face up, ALL OTHER FACE-UP COPIES of Asteroid M HE ALREADY HAS IN PLAY woule be placed in the KO'd pile"

Why would they pluralizes it? Why would they say ALL face-up copies he already has in play, if the player can ONLY HAVE ONE? Wouldn't they say 'iTHE OTHER face-up copy of...' or 'ANY OTHER face-up copy of...'?

The fact that they made it plural shows that the player in the example COULD have multiple copies of Asteroid M IN PLAY simultaneously.

Which means that said playe can somehow acquire a second Asteroid M without KOing the first, likely through relocation since that is currently the only non-flip way to acquire a location.

Is funny how some of you guys love to go around the rules. :confused:

There is only one rulebook and it says:

page 11

Unique: Like characters, locations are unique. When you flip a location, place any other location you control with the same name into your KO'd pile.

We must all agree that we can ONLY control ONE location with the same name. (as characters)
Then the part that said "when u flip a location..." is only circumstancial.
Characters come into play and Location are flip since are already in the resource row.

Please don't argue on terms. By now Relocation doesn't say otherwise. Stay on the facts. You only get to control your opponent's location and if that location is already on your resource row you can only control one, the other is KO'd.

:classic:

Without commenting on anything else, I'm with you on this point, Kergillian. In fact, UDE has already said as much.

That is incorrect per UDE.

Relocation does not cause you to KO an existing location with the same name as the one you just stole.

YAY!! We AGREED on something! United Nations eatcher heart out!

So all other bickering aside, we agree then, that the relocation question is also stated UNclearly in the rulebook, but stated all the same, in the example on page 11? =)

I'm so proud of us! =)

:confused: I already read your point on another thread Zaxx.

I understand now about the verification of unique status.

Sounds nice. :classic:

Sorry for being in a rush...;)

Kergy you are too granular for your own good. They have to use plural because, it wouldn't make sense "destroy the other Asteriod M", they have cover all the bases when making a general statement like that. Because as in any card game...an effect CAN override any rules, this case is no different.

All i know is, they want to avoid situations where you have to destroy Locations...which i'm fine with. Relocation is supposed to be a 1 for 1 trade, and since Resources are so important they have to make a rule such as this.

...but it really takes away for the idea of being unique (IMO).

`{nova}