Rex is actually pretty awful

I definitely don't think it's awful, but after another game I'm definitely more critical of it than I was after the first.

It's actually not hard to explain...provided you're playing with people who have played Dune. Then you just refer to everything in Dune terms.

The map is a fucking mess. The circular Dune map made so much more sense and it was easier to visualize everything.

Taking out the worthless cards is my pick for the MAJOR BLUNDER. It makes Atreides' prediction ability pretty much pointless, particularly with the strictures against secret communication.

The combat is overcomplicated more in the explanation than the execution. It's still not particularly elaborate, but it's overexplained and over developed. Having to "lock in" cards by selecting a spot on the wheel for your commander is kind of dumb, it's a fix to keep people from whining more than anything else, it seems like.

There are definitely places where the themes and setting don't connect with the rules, which isn't an issue in Dune. The story in the rulebook seems like it's there just to try to justify the game. Why do the Xcha win if they predict the winner? It doesn't make sense. It makes sense that the Bene Gesserit do.

One sentiment I am starting to agree with is "why bother". Rex is a good game, but it's good because Dune is a good game. I've been trying to work out how to appreciate the game on its own merit, but it's just not possible. Everything about that's great is because of EON. Everything about it that's not great is because of FFG.

So, Rex is actually the first planet whose inhabitants coined the phrase, "Who Is John Galt?"

Got it.

Michael Barnes wrote: I definitely don't think it's awful, but after another game I'm definitely more critical of it than I was after the first.

It's actually not hard to explain...provided you're playing with people who have played Dune. Then you just refer to everything in Dune terms.

The map is a fucking mess. The circular Dune map made so much more sense and it was easier to visualize everything.

Taking out the worthless cards is my pick for the MAJOR BLUNDER. It makes Atreides' prediction ability pretty much pointless, particularly with the strictures against secret communication.

The combat is overcomplicated more in the explanation than the execution. It's still not particularly elaborate, but it's overexplained and over developed. Having to "lock in" cards by selecting a spot on the wheel for your commander is kind of dumb, it's a fix to keep people from whining more than anything else, it seems like.

There are definitely places where the themes and setting don't connect with the rules, which isn't an issue in Dune. The story in the rulebook seems like it's there just to try to justify the game. Why do the Xcha win if they predict the winner? It doesn't make sense. It makes sense that the Bene Gesserit do.

One sentiment I am starting to agree with is "why bother". Rex is a good game, but it's good because Dune is a good game. I've been trying to work out how to appreciate the game on its own merit, but it's just not possible. Everything about that's great is because of EON. Everything about it that's not great is because of FFG.

This really shows just how much of a bind FFG was in with this game. I can't disagree with anything you wrote, having not played Dune. But also having not played Dune, most of these things don't bother me very much. It really does feel like an FFG game to me, which maybe shows how pervasive some of Eon's design philosophy has become in modern board games.

But yeah, the whole "Dune-but-not-really-Dune" thing is confusing all around. Is this supposed to be a completely new game? Becuase it really isn't from what I understand. Is it supposed to be Dune in new clothes? Because it isn't that either. I like the game a lot after two plays, but this one might be doomed to failure. The tragedy of it is that I bet FFG would have been glad to just republish the original game if they could have finangled the rights.

The game is still VERY much Dune. The changes FFG made in terms of overall rules and content are pretty small. Most of those are actually good. (There seems to be more money in the game, and the special powers have been mucked with slightly to create a set of powers that feels somewhere in between the Basic and Optional rules in the original boxed set. That mix seems nearly perfect.

My biggest problem is the theme change. That really does destroy what makes Dune great. That did surprise me, because I thought that Rex should be fine without it and was planning to buy a copy.

Behind that is the board. It looks like a crazy mess of connected areas. It is easier to figure out how to move armies, as there are no ambiguities, but the storm movement is sacrificed in turn. And the actual game information is in tiny little icons that are easily covered and hidden behind stacks. It also makes it hard to see where the sietches are.

I didn't know about the useless cards being removed. In there place are some cards that do some minor uninteresting things, which is not a bad substitute really. They still suck, but they aren't awful.

Removing the full card summary is a major blunder. Especially in a game where each card and combat is critical.

I do really like the Ally card summaries. And the larger counters for the mechanized units.

In thinking about it a little more, it's a little like if someone gets the rights to Battlestar Galactica in 30 years, but can't use the original IP for whatever reason. I think that if someone was really attached to the original game, no amount of solid gameplay could really replace the original setting. Obviously, mileage will vary for different people, but I totally understand how some people just couldn't get past that. I know a re-themed BSG would be anathema for me.

One reason to bother with Rex against Dune is that the play time is about halved. That's a big win in my opinion, although it's made me wonder whether you could also play Dune to 8 rounds max for a similar effect.

I'm not so sure removing the worthless cards is quite so awful. Prediction is less useful but far from useless, and for me it helps fix a major issue I had with the original which was excessive hidden information. That's me though - I can see how it would be a negative for many.

The problem with removing the worthless cards is the balance. In Dune, BG want alot of worthless cards while the clog up the hand of everyone else. With a hand limit of 4, getting a few worthless cards is a big deal.

Cutting the turn limit to 8 instead of 15 doesn't really cut the play time in half - arguably, it's longer as I have very few Dune games longer than 8 anyhow. All Rex does is pump more money into the system (oh yeah, that balance thing comes up again!) to encourage more activity but there are more resources in play each turn, so each turn may take a little longer. I think the main advantage of lowering the total turn count is that play time becomes more predictable. Dune could go 2 turns or the distance and hence, 60-90 minutes or 6-8 hours (which is okay in my book).

My biggest problem is that Rex is like a heavily house-ruled version of Dune. Dune was all about tight player balance despite hugely different player powers. Messing around with that balance would require extensive playtesting and that's just nothing I put much trust in FFG to do. It really won't surprise me if people come back in a year or so and discover some massive imbalance in race win percentages ...but that's only if Rex is still hitting the table much in a year or so.

Michael Barnes wrote: One sentiment I am starting to agree with is "why bother". Rex is a good game, but it's good because Dune is a good game. I've been trying to work out how to appreciate the game on its own merit, but it's just not possible. Everything about that's great is because of EON. Everything about it that's not great is because of FFG.

My sentiments exactly! Rex is extremely derivative but it's in no shape or form a bad game. Problem is Dune has already done it better. Next time I will definitely play Dune instead of Rex. The tweaks they have done has basically lead to a shorter/faster game. But it feels off, seems like the increased economy has given The Emperor and The Guild even more power. Thing is I will never find out, since it won't be hitting the table.

excessive hidden information

BUT IT'S DUNE! You know, wheels within wheels and all that? Intrigue, betrayal, secrets...

Griff said something that struck a chord with me...

but that's only if Rex is still hitting the table much in a year or so.

This made me really think about Rex's longevity over Dune. The thing is, I don't think we'll see Rex being as popular as Dune has ever been. I think in time, Rex will sort of occupy that same space that Britannia, Warrior Knights, and other FFG reprints that aren't named Arkham Horror, Talisman, or Cosmic Encounter have slipped into.

jgriff wrote: My biggest problem is that Rex is like a heavily house-ruled version of Dune. Dune was all about tight player balance despite hugely different player powers. Messing around with that balance would require extensive playtesting and that's just nothing I put much trust in FFG to do.

Desperately...trying...not to FFG-bash, since I really am not even close to hating them, just frequently disappointed and, even more, perplexed by their decisions: but yeah, I don't trust them to develop or playtest properly for balance worth shit.

And Barnes already pointed it out, but: how can you complain about "too much hidden information" in Dune? That's like complaining about "too much drama" or "too much direct player interaction".

Almost done with my PnP set. I've got a bunch of extra 2-inch (leader-sized) wooden disks, if anyone wants them for their own PnP set.