Here's the according rule:

Okay, let's say its a 4 way FFA game. Player 2 uses Relocation on one of my locations (let's say Avalon Space Station). During this turn, player 2 is brought to < 0 END and the rest of the remaining players including myself are still in positive #'s.

When Player 2 is removed from the game during recovery, am I basically going to be short one resource?

Pretty much.

The house rule we implemented (since the rule doesn't mention what you do with cards they control but don't own) is that the relocation goes back to the owner as a resource.

This is not correct, there is a way for it to happen, but not in the scenerio described.

In the scenerio given the Avalone would revert back to the previous controller, which is player 1.

This is how it could happen. If Player 2 relocates Player 1's Avalone Space Station, then Player 3 relocates the same space station from Player two.

If player two is then removed from the game, the relocation in Player 2's resource row reverts back to Player 3 and the relocation in Player 1's resource row is removed.

End result, player one would be short a resource and player 3 would be up a resource for a net difference of 2.

Read it again, I have bolded the section that handels those situations.

102.3 Players lose the game when they are removed from the game. All objects that player owns are removed from the game. Any effects that player controls on the chain are negated by the game rules. Objects that player controls but doesn't own revert to their last controller. Continuous modifiers from objects and effects that player controlled are no longer applicable. This rule is an exception to rule 505.4 and to rule 513.2b

Basically what CD said: The concept of "what that player OWNS" is a bit hazy. Bill may actually, physically OWN several Avalon's, but if he did not play the one in question from HIS DECK, Bill is NOT considered to OWN the card in question.

HTH :cool:

P

It is actaully very clear, from the comp rules

Chad,

I wasn't referring to rule 102.3, I didn't look for it. I was responding to his post about the definition of "own."