No disrespect taken =)

It's not a different mechanic, per se. It's the same mechanic applied to different card types.

"like characters, locations are unique but in a way different from characters" is not what I mean - what I mean is a little more long-winded: "like characters, locations are unique in the way that they both have this characteristic, however due to the different mechanics of the card types, the APPLICATION of this characteristic is altered slightly."

I'd be on your side 100% if the definition of unique characters (you can't have more than one IN PLAY at the same time) contradicted the example of unique locations (If you flip a location, ALL FACE-UP LOCATIONS (plural) of the same name are KO'd)

This contradiction shows that while they might share a characteristic, the application of this characteristic differs slightly.

Think of it like a pair of glasses and a pair of contacts. Each have the characteristic 'corrective lenses' , but due to a different 'mechanic', they APPLY differently, even though they share the same inherent characteristic.

Kergillian,

Since you seem be focusing on flipping a location vs. recruiting a character, can you name another way to put a location into play?

They're not playable straight out of hand as the rules state all resources must be placed face down in the resource row.

(By the way, a face down location is not a duplicate location as it has no name)

I don't see how you can argue that flipping versus recruiting makes all the difference when discussing the unique attribute. Locations are flipped, characters and equipment are recruited.

Either way, this is how the card comes into play and we check to see if a card with that name already exists. If so, we KO the existing card.

The method used to bring the card into play is what differs, not the effect of uniqueness on the card as it comes into play.

By extension, this means you can control more than one unique character or equipment if you steal it from your opponent.

Now either this is the way UDE designed the game or someone overlooked something. Either way, I'd like an official response from someone about this. After all, it was UDE's ruling on Relocation that started this mess.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Kergillian,

Here are two excerpts from the basic rulebook:

1) When you recruit a character, put any other characters you control with the same name into your KO’d pile.

2) When you flip a location, place any other location you control with the same name into your KO’d pile.

That text looks nearly identical. When you consider the only differences are the types of cards reffered to and the way they come into play, those statements are identical.

This strongly supports the explanation that the game checks to see if any previous copies of a unique card exist only when that card comes into play.

Couple that with the fact that there no state-based effects in this game and we see that it is entirely possible to control more than one copy of a unique character, equipment or location.

All we lack now is a method of stealing something other than a location.

What I'm saying is that your statement that

'By extension, this means you can control more than one unique character or equipment if you steal it from your opponent.'

--> is untrue. Page 8 says 'Each player may only have 1 copy of a named character IN PLAY at a time.'

It does NOT say you can only RECRUIT or PUT INTO PLAY 1 copy. It says you can only HAVE 1 copy IN PLAY.

So if you 'steal' a character of the same name as one you already have, you now have 2 characters of the same name in play at the same time, and one must be KO'd.

BUT for locations, it appears to work differently, as the example on page 11 puts forth the possibility of a player with multiple face-up copies of Asteroid M IN PLAY simultaneously, BEFORE they are ALL Ko'd by a flipped Asteroid M.

Which means that even though according to the rulebook, you apparently CANNOT have more than one 'unique' character in play at the same time, you apparently CAN have more than one 'unique' location in play at the same time.

Which means that there is a contradiction betwen 'unique' characteristics, between two separate card types, and that unique locations therefore do not function in an identical manner to unique character and equipment.

Read the next sentence and that's exactly what it says. Are you seeing where I'm coming from on all of this being very unclear?

The only way stealing a duplicate would KO your existing character would be if the game checked for duplicates at all times.

The fact is that the game does not check at all times, only when a card comes into play. That is straight out of Alex Charsky's keyboard.

The ramifications are clear: duplicate unique permanents are allowed.

Zaxx:

1st off, I want to thank you. I've felt very frustrated trying to properly explain my side of things, and so I know you must feel the same - so THANK YOU for remaining civil and tolerant of my arguments throughout this discussion.

2nd:



This is my ENTIRE point, in a nutshell.

My PERSONAL opinion is that you are right that multiple unique permanents, when acquired by means other than 'playing' them, are legal. Alex did say what you say - that uniques are only checked upon putting a card into play.

What I'm saying here, is that the wording in the rulebook is contradictory and unclear.

Kergillian,

That's twice in one night. ;)

well we're obviously on a hot streak - we should kick in for a lottery ticket;)

Too funny! I almost commented that it was time to buy a lottery ticket.