Can you have 4 base of operations out at once?

If you play a location you already control you KO the old location.
If you acquire it through some other means than playing it (relocation) you can have multiples.

This is extremly significant, this breaks the "Unique" rule.

Are you sure about the Relocation?...I was always under the impression that if you stole someone's location through Relocation that you lose it if you have one of the same name.

Well according to what Mitchell is saying (being a Netrep means you hand out Official Rules to the public), if you were to steal a Location with Relocation and you had another identical active one, you would be able to keep both.

Alex Charsky himself chimed in on this one and explained that the only time the game checks to see if a permanent is unique is when it changes zones.

All we've got is the in-play zone, the KO pile and our hands so effectively, the only time we check for uniqueness is when a card comes into play.

Since Relocation only changes control of the location and not the zone that location is in, it gets around the uniqueness check and you net a duplicate loation.

Which also means, that if you were to somehow take control of an opponents Wolverine (for example), and you had an identical one, you would be able to control both of them.

This would apply for all "Unique" and non-Army cards.

They haven't made control themed cards yet right?

No.
As a side note, just keep in mind that they may adjust things so that the Relocation trick won't work. It works now, I'm just saying to keep your ears open, it may not work later.

wrong. The reason is, unlike for unique locations, the rulebook specifically states on p.8 'Each player may only have 1 copy of a named character IN PLAY at a time.'

It doesn't say this for locations. If it did you'd never be able to play a face-down location of the same name as a face-up one.

i disagree kergillian. a face down card is a resource only. it has no name until it is flipped. by your estimate, it sounds as if you can't even play characters of the same name as a character on the field as a resource.

also, the part of the rules you quote is titled only "unique" and is about characters, but locations say "like characters, locations are unique" p. 11. so, like characters you may only have one locations of the same name in play. however, i think the next part is that part people are forgetting, it says "when you flip a location, place any other location you control with the same name in the ko pile."

and as previously stated by ude reps, "uniqueness" is only checked when the card is brought into play (for locations this is only by flipping) so, if you have a location in play flipped up, and steal your opponents locaiton of the same name, "uniqueness isn't checked and therefore the original isn't ko'd.

the same would apply to a character that is stolen from another player. the only time this wouldn't work is if you recruited a duplicate character or flipped a duplicate location after you have taken an opponents card. then it would check for uniqueness and ko the original stolen card.

does that make any sense?

To briefly repeat myself from another thread:

1) 'unique' is under character, equipment and location. Under equipment, the rules specifically statesthat equipment follows the same rules as characters. Locations do NOT state this. There is no single definition for 'unique' in the rulebook.

2) more importantly, the example on pg. 11 reads (emphasis mine): 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 the KO'd pile."

Unlike characters, where we are specifically told we CANNOT have more than one IN PLAY at the same time, we are here given an example of a player who can potentially have multiple face-up locations of the SAME NAME in his resource row.

So: A siingle player cannot have multiple characters or equipment IN PLAY simultaneously, regardless of how they got into play; from your hand, KO'd pile, deck or opponent's side.

LOCATIONS are allowed, however, to be multiplied in play, as long as you did not FLIP them from your resource row.

Hence: if you used relocation and then flipped the same location as the relocated one from your resource row, the relocated location would KO.

You're stretching, Kergillian. Nothing in what we now know of the rules supports your assertions.

"Like characters, locations are unique". The part about flipping them supports what Alex said: we check for uniqueness when a card changes zones (i.e. comes into play).

If locations are "unique" like characters and more than one copy of a location may be under your control at any time, the same holds true for characters without UDE ruling to the contrary.

As for there being no single definition of unique, it's a single word. Multiple definitions might be viewed as a problem, don't you think?

"Like characters, locations are unique" simply means that they hold the characteristic 'unique'.

If they were truly the same as characters, why would they not have the same explanation as equipment ('a few equipment cards are unique and follow the same rule as unique characters')

If they were the same as characters, they would say 'locations are unique and follow the same rules as unique characters. When you flip a location...'

The very fact that 1) the wording under locations is different than the wording under equipment, and 2) the EXAMPLE in the RULEBOOK puts forth a player with the possibility of multiple locations of the same name in play simultaneously, show that multiple 'unique' locations can exist simultaneously in certain circumstances.

Unique is a characteristic that is given to certain cards, The reason there cannot be a universal 'definition' of 'unique' is that locations work differently than characters and equipment, and therefore a single, universal definition of a characteristic on cards with different rule-structures would be flawed.

The flaw would be using one word to describe two mechanics which, while similar, are not the same.

No disrepect but you're trying to convince me that "like characters, locations are unique" means "like characters, locations are unique but in a way different from characters."

I'm not buying that explanation until UDE sells it. Even then, I'd argue that a different mechanic should have a different name in order to avoid confusion.