This game looks cool (specifically that bombardment model and mechanic), but I am wary.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being least like Android the board game mechanically and 10 being almost exactly, where would you rate it if you've played it?

I am interested in game length, balance, and "take-that" card aspect. Thanks.

I haven't played Android or Rex, but I have played Dune, so I can answer some questions.

Due to the game not always ending on the same turn, it can go anywhere from an hour to two and a half hours. Three if you're learning the game, I'm told, though my first game was on a forum, so I couldn't say.

There is some element of Take That, but not much. The cards you will really want to attain are combat cards, which can only be used in battle.

It looks like they tried with Rex to make it more balanced than Dune, which isn't a bad idea, but balance isn't really important. Like Cosmic Encounter, the game is designed so that the players balance it as they go along. Few would say the Fremen are a powerhouse in the original game, and few would deny that the Harkonnen are... and yet in my games, Fremen have won a good deal more. The social game is as important as what's happening on the board.

Again, haven't played Android yet, but I do get Rex in the mail today, so I can answer any particulars about it soon.

I forgot that I also wondered if this game would remind me too of Munchkin and I played that today again as a re-trial, and I still didn't like it. Specifically, the reasons I do not like Munchkin, though it's quick (which is usually good for me), is super-big monsters you need your opponents to help kill with you, so you negotiate terms. And that sounds a lot like what this game is probably going to be. If negotiations are more trade-based, like point for point balanced, I may like it. Just skeptical. Maybe I like the bombardment figurine and mechanic idea more than the game itself

I may be waiting for detailed reviews on this one.

I don't think anyone who's played Dune/Rex would think to compare it to Munchkin. There are no enemies for players to team up against, anyway. You can team up against each other, but it is not required. Winning solo is perfectly viable but takes more finesse. The betrayal variant included in the rules should make solo wins much more common, one way or the other.

I say this all from Dune experience, but I have Rex now. Should get it on the table tomorrow. There is at least one review on BGG. Not all that detailed though.

Tromdial said:

I haven't played Android, so I can't speak to how it would compare to that game. Adam has already mentioned that Rex is similar to Dune, what he may not have been perfectly clear on is that Rex is actually an official remake of Dune, with a different setting. The two games are not identical by any means, but they are 90% the same, I would say. So if you want to know what Rex is "like," go read the reviews for Dune on BGG and you'll have a pretty good idea. (I personally recommend the "Finally, a game for jerks!" Dune review. I think it captures the game dynamic nicely.)

As far as game length goes, Rex stops after 8 turns compared to Dune's 15. It also has increased movement allowances and basically incorporates the "double spice blow" advanced rule, which means both money and troopies will be flowing faster in a game that ends quicker. I can't really give an accurate time estimate on Rex since I haven't played it yet myself, but I can say with confidence that this will not be 6 hour marathon like Arkham Horror or Descent. Certainly not as long as TI3.

The cards in Rex are composed somewhat differently than they were in Dune, and by and large I'd say they downplayed the "take that!" aspect of playing them. Most of the cards in Rex have a tactical advantage for you, rather than a sudden penalty for your opponent. The notable exception is traitors, which I suppose would qualify as a "take that!" and, to be fair, traitors are an integral part of the game. You COULD simply play without them, but it wouldn't be the same.

As for game balance - that depends on what you mean by "balance." The factions are asymmetrical as all get out - they all have unique abilities that are completely unequalled (Hacan receives payment for everyone who ships units down from orbit, Xxcha can command his opponent in battle not to play one specific card of his choosing, etc.) Intra-player diplomacy plays a strong role in Dune, and I expect it will in Rex as well having read over the rules. How well balanced the game feels will rely strongly on who you're playing with and how well a player can leverage his own faction's resources. This is definitely not a game where you can just sit back and coast through your first few plays - if you have any great desire to win, that is.

As for Munchkin, the only thing Rex has in common with Munchkin is a deterministic combat system, and even then the similarities lie mostly in the definition of the word "deterministic." There are no overly large enemies that you need to team up against (unless one player is making himself such.) Everyone has the same number of units to bring to bear - except Lazax who has a small number of slightly stronger units.

I played Android, played Dune (so long ago I can barely remember it) and will be playing REX on Thursday night. I'm not sure how Munchkins got rolled into all this, but just as a side note, Munchkins is a game you play with Tequila shots and humerous role-playing nerds (like me). Its not ment to be a good game, its more like a funny distraction that you have while socializing.

Anywho.

One thing I can say is that Android is a game you either love or you hate. Its an oddity out their really as it kind of mixes role-playing and board gaming together but not in the interaction sense as much as the story sense (unlike most games like Fury of Dracula for example), but like a good role-playing game, you need players who are into the story in order to be into the game. Its why the reviews for this game vary so much more than most games, I see people giving it perfect tens and others wishing they could have their money back. Seems to be a kind of either you love it or you hate it kind of affair. Personally I didn't think too highly of it either, but I can't say I had enough exposure to it when i tried it, it was kind of an off night and it was supposed to be a pre-curser to better things that I wanted to get to but instead it seemed to drag on forever.

As for REX, if memory serves me correctly, DUNE was a game in which player interaction took place mostly outside of the mechanics, aka diplomacy. Lying, backstabbing and that sort of thing. I recall someone mentioning that the atmosphere was not unlike Illuminati where one second someone is your friend helping you and the next their sticking it to you to try to steal the win. I bought it on a whim because the last two game releases I wanted to buy I procastinated and ended up missing the oppertunity, so this time, I slid the card and am hoping for the best. FFG rarely outright disapoints me, their games aren't always stellar, but I can't recall the last one I played that was outright bad and given this game is based on an establsihed mechanic it seemed like a safe purchase. I plan on doing a first impressions review on REX, I usually do on the games I buy.

So what's the consensus now that the game has been out for a couple weeks?

From what I've read, the consensus sounds mostly positive with only a few small grumblings from people who are somehow still shocked that it isn't Dune.

From my two plays, my group has found it to be an extremely fun game, and we haven't even gotten to a five- or six-player game yet. This is a big deal to me as Dune was essentially not worth playing with fewer than five. I'm curious now if Rex will even work well with three.

Adam said:

I think I can definitively say that if you haven't played a six player game of REX you have not yet had the full experiance this game has to offer. This game could have easily been listed for 6 players only, as the difference between a 4 and 6 player game is very significant.

I have read a lot of things on boardgamegeek, first impressions, reviews and some complaints about the game. While I don't really share most of these critiscisms, their is some validity to some of the issues, it really depends on your groups approach to the game. I think REX is unique in that group dynamic plays a much bigger role in wether or not the game plays well. There is so much going outside of the mechanics that realistically this is where the core of the game is. As I read the complaints its painfully obvious that those doing the complaining are not experiancing these aspects of the game, so I think its more accurate to say that "There SHOULD be so much going on outside of the mechanics". Many of the complaints are about mechanics and rather insignificant balance complaints like the Xxcha prediction or the Hacan default victory thing, both of which really are completetly irrelevant in a six player game where politics and table talk is at the forefront of the game. If you are "just playing the mechanics", than ya, this game suffers from quite a few balancing snafus, but I really do think the relevance of balance in a game like this is significantly minimized in a group of players that get the fact that the weight of the games results take place far more in the political forum than in the tactical (mechanics) forum. I don't know if that makes sense, but it should if you are playing in a group where this is the case and it becomes even more true in a 5 and especially a 6 player game.

I would say their is a lot of relation to group think as is the case in Twilight Imperium. You ask 10 TI3 groups what makes a great Twilight Imperium board game session or what balance issues TI3 has and you are going to get wildly different opinions. Each group finds its own variants combinations, strategy card combinations, play time preference and racial balances that works for them and makes their game sessions what they want them to be. Some people spend obscene amounts of time trying to complicate the political game, while others complain their is not enough war and try to use variants that push the issue. Others find the balance of races traggically off, while still others are balancing races, that different groups might scratch their heads and ask why in the world would you mess with X race when Y race is so obviously broken. The truth of the matter however is that experiances differ and they usually do so because of the play styles of players in that group. I recall having a conversation not to long ago where a TI3 player was adjusting the Sardek N'orr because he felt they where and I quote "Way over powered". Suprised the hell out of me as my group has always felt strongly that this is by a wide margine the weakest race in the game.

Anywho, I think REX has this same sort of element, but less so in the mechanics and more so in the depth and complexity of the political game and table talk the group implements in the game. The more you have, the less noteable the mechanics issues are as their is a kind of natural balancing effect that takes place. Without that element I can understand the complaints and really on paper the complaints do have some validity.

I have no doubt that there is a dramatic difference from four to five or six. Just saying that it is actually still fun with four, though certainly not as fun. Six-player only would definitely be inaccurate.