Rex is actually pretty awful
(1 viewing) (1) Guest
Talk about the latest and greatest AT, and the Classics.

TOPIC: Rex is actually pretty awful

13 Mar 2012 01:30 #119070

Re: Rex is actually pretty awful

Michael Barnes wrote:

But somebody in playtesting likely whined "Waaah! I spent all my money on a useless card, this game is buh-buh-buh-broken". And FFG listened. So now, no whammies. All cards do something good.


The first time I played Dune, I started with the Treachery card "La-la-la." I was puzzled. I turned it upside down, then back again, then asked to see the rule book. I looked and looked, but couldn't see the point of the card. But I didn't want to ask any of the other players about it, accidentally stumbling into the bluffing aspect of the cards. Unfortunately, one of the more clever people at the table noticed and understood my reaction. He defeated me handily in my first battle that game.
  • Shellhead
  • D10
  • friends see frenzy
  • Posts: 4769
OFFLINE
13 Mar 2012 01:40 #119071

Re: Rex is actually pretty awful

I've only played Dune once, but really enjoyed my turn as the Harkkonen. Even though I was ultimately on the losing side, having all those traitors is a blast. I particularly liked allowing my traitor to win a smaller conflict, giving the player a false sense of security, to reveal the traitor in a later, larger engagement.

Damn, it's a fun game.

As far as Rex, Not knowing the Dune material, I have no idea why the Gene Basserit (sp?) guessing a winner is thematic. For whatever reason, I don't see why that same reason can't be made for the new Rex race. I mean, are the GBs fortune tellers? Then make the Rex race fortune tellers. Again, makes no difference to me, but hoping to hear that Rex is a good substitute.
Life & Death & An American Chainsaw
Last Edit: 13 Mar 2012 01:41 by Mr. White.
NOW ONLINE
13 Mar 2012 03:31 #119081

Re: Rex is actually pretty awful

Motheragod y'all, can't I please use the Internet properly to overstate my case to make Matt look even more wrong than he already is?

The thing is, I kind of disagree with myself after thinking about the commitment issue...mainly because you have such a limited force pool, and I agree with what y'all are saying about your men being out of circulation and expensive to bring back. And of course, we've all seen the dumb guy that blows through half of his men by the second or third turn. But I stand by what I said- you've got to be willing to lose guys and commit aggressively to battles you feel like (or know) you're going to win. The risk is always there, and that's part of the drama and thrill of the game.

Actually, in our first Rex game I WAY over-committed early and lots of Jol-Nar went into the penalty box (that's what we call it now). It's definitely a long term strategy decision, which is interesting.
NOW ONLINE
13 Mar 2012 08:16 #119093

Re: Rex is actually pretty awful

Dialing high for troops or trying to conserve everything goes back to my broken record of balance, balance, balance. Fremen players wanted to risk lots of troops and lots of battles since they get to regenerate them quickly and can place them back on the board for free so they set themselves for a strong late game. Other sides like the Harkonnens can't afford early losses and have to use their early board lead to try to win. But of course, if you change the rules to cut the turns in half and dump twice as much spice/influence into the game, that balance gets messed up. Now everyone can bring back 5 troops a turn instead of 3 max and you have double spice blows. That should be a wash except that it helps "Rich" players more than the Fremen who just saw their best advantage (3 free revivals and a stranglehold on the future spice) get removed.

You could play Dune with a houserule that it ends in 8 turns instead of 15 but you don't because it wouldn't be balanced or fair. All of the changes seem like they just felt not enough happened in a single turn of Dune so they had to "turn it up to 11" by increasing movement, doubling spice blows, increasing troop revivials per turn, and replacing worthless cards with "new kewl cards". All the changes muck up a well-tested & well-balanced game. My biggest beef with Rex is that it is going to convince a whole lot of people that Dune probably isn't worth trying because they played Rex and found it mediocre so why bother playing that game that's similar.
OFFLINE
13 Mar 2012 12:05 #119106

Re: Rex is actually pretty awful

jgriff wrote:
You could play Dune with a houserule that it ends in 8 turns instead of 15 but you don't because it wouldn't be balanced or fair. All of the changes seem like they just felt not enough happened in a single turn of Dune so they had to "turn it up to 11" by increasing movement, doubling spice blows, increasing troop revivials per turn, and replacing worthless cards with "new kewl cards". All the changes muck up a well-tested & well-balanced game. My biggest beef with Rex is that it is going to convince a whole lot of people that Dune probably isn't worth trying because they played Rex and found it mediocre so why bother playing that game that's similar.


I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's really early to be making declarations like this. I've played the game twice with groups that have never played Rex, and it's been well-regarded so far. Most people have really enjoyed it. If FFG spent 4 years working on this (which I don't think is necessarily the case), then they probably did playtest these changes.

This thread is a little frustrating for me because it's making me second-guess my own experience, even though I already enjoy Rex plenty.. Not that this isn't a discussion worth having, but I don't want anyone to come away with the overwhelming feeling that Rex sucks. Becuase it doesn't. It's a good game.

Regarding balance, does Dune feel a little wonky with less thank six people? We haven't yet played with the Xxcha, so we've seen a lot of power coming from the Hacan because of all the deployment. Does this hold true for the original game, at least when everyone is still learning?
Subscribe to my game blog, The Rumpus Room.
sanildefanso.wordpress.com
NOW ONLINE
13 Mar 2012 13:11 #119115

Re: Rex is actually pretty awful

cdennett wrote:


One of you guys with too much time on your hands should make me an PnP copy of Dune. I'll pay and the Herbert folks will never need to know about it...


For $120, there's a guy on ToS who will build you the Illya redesign. I am considering making my sons read the book and finding two more dedicated fans. Realistically, it is a game I will only play about three times in my life.
NOW ONLINE
13 Mar 2012 13:22 #119118

Re: Rex is actually pretty awful

You're all a bunch of bastards. I have a game day coming up... Guess what's coming off the shelf this weekend.

Don't think too hard.
Imperial: Yes, we released the Great Darkness... Sue us.
  • Rliyen
  • D8
  • Trencher 4 Life
  • Posts: 1476
OFFLINE
13 Mar 2012 13:34 #119124

Re: Rex is actually pretty awful

San Il Defanso wrote:


This thread is a little frustrating for me because it's making me second-guess my own experience, even though I already enjoy Rex plenty.. Not that this isn't a discussion worth having, but I don't want anyone to come away with the overwhelming feeling that Rex sucks. Becuase it doesn't. It's a good game.

Regarding balance, does Dune feel a little wonky with less thank six people? We haven't yet played with the Xxcha, so we've seen a lot of power coming from the Hacan because of all the deployment. Does this hold true for the original game, at least when everyone is still learning?


If you really like Rex, then by all means screw everything I'm saying and play Rex to death. But I really hope you'll give Dune a shot too. I think all of us bashing Rex would probably have liked it if Dune didn't exist. Alot of the changes they made were optional/advanced rules from Dune but generally in my groups, those were the very optional rules that no one liked anyhow and now they are "standard" in Rex. I would give Rex a big nod on production quality but the homebrew PnP Dune stuff is fantastic.

Regarding number of players, then yep, Dune gets weak without six players. I have played good games with five but it's not the same. I've never played with less than 5 and I can't see a reason to do so. Like any sort of diplomacy/negotiation game, more is always better.

As far as the FFG playtesting thing, I will add the caveat that they are one of my favorite publishers and I own way too much of their stuff but the obvious errata and broken mechanics that get caught as soon as it gets out on the street (or often before, by virtue of their included errata in the boxes) makes me feel like I am a beta-tester on every inhouse game they make. I love playing their games but their playtesting track record is horrible. I'm sure they play it inhouse or within certain groups alot before publishing but they need alot people trying to break the game and rule-lawyer it to death and I doubt they get that. I have a ton of AH & GMT games that are twice as complex, with rulebooks that are half the size, and that barely need any errata or FAQs. All of that is because of playtesting.
The following user(s) said Thank You: wadenels
OFFLINE
13 Mar 2012 13:39 #119126

Re: Rex is actually pretty awful

For all those bitching about how expensive it is to buy Dune...I just checked some recent Ebay auctions via BGG. I saw copies in VG condition that sold very recently for $60-70. Sure it's more expensive than buying Rex from a mail order place but I was surprised, I thought it would be more expensive.
The following user(s) said Thank You: dragonstout
OFFLINE
13 Mar 2012 14:04 #119128

Re: Rex is actually pretty awful

One can currently pick up Rex from B&N for about $35 shipped.

Not bad.
Life & Death & An American Chainsaw
NOW ONLINE
Time to create page: 1.19 seconds
Text Size

Top