I really like the idea of a mechanic for defusing/countering detonations and/or reinforcing or rebuilding the shield wall. Just needs an added layer to create more dynamic strategies/defenses against end-game worms. CJ mentioned a once-per-game "Family Atomics-style" retreat mechanic, which was also a good idea but maybe that could be implemented for shield defense. Every player gets a one-time use shield token, which can be used in two ways: 1) Defuse: Use shield token and recall spy on Spice Refinery, Arrakeen, and Imperial Basin (maybe even Sietch Tabr) immediately at the time another player attempts to break the wall and you defuse/counter their attempt 2) Rebuild/Repair Wall: Use shield token at the end of a round to rebuild/replace the Shield Wall (maybe add a resource cost to this as well).
Maybe a Plot/Combat Intrigue card "The Voice" 3 Influence with BG: Cancel an Intrigue card that an opponent played. Or maybe you need an alliance with BG. Just an idea.
@@Shad0wSix Putting it behind an alliance is not likely, I believe Paul originally planned for worm access to be behind 3 fremen friendship but testing proved it wasn't used much. So not a bad idea but not likely
The biggest missed opportunity for me was not introducing a new starting deck. Obviously the starting deck works, it held up though Ix and Immo and plays great. But with a new board, it would have been nice to see some new/more interesting starting hands. Especially if we could get rid of the terrible draws like double dagger and double convincing with a random starting card. I know there are more draw spaces to smooth those out, but there is nothing set in stone that D:I must be so cumbersome with its opening/second hands. I think there are many variations of 10 starting cards that could be devised with a mix of locations and persuasion to mix things up a bit. Alas. Maybe for the 3rd movie they will give it a try.
I decided to substitute one of the dune desert planets for the epic mode IX card - control the spice, same triangle access, but can help give spice/start trashing out other starting cards.
I really don’t understand how worm strength of 4 was too strong. In the design diaries Paul said that it was very hard to fight against that. Getting 4 strength for 1 water is not too strong, it’s basically the same thing as hardy warriors. 8 strength for 3 water is also not too strong in my opinion. Doubled rewards however are way stronger than just 1 strength per worm. I would be curious to see whether worms with 4 strength are really that hard to fight against.
The extra emphasis on the Conflict phase in Uprising is (surely) thematic as Dune Part Two. The book ends with the Fremen / Atreides achieving a sweeping victory in battle over Harkonnen and Sardaukar troops with (yes) sand worms as a key part of the strategy. As much as political scheming and economic levers played a part, you can't take control of Arrakis without military victory. It makes complete sense for Uprising, then, as the sequel to Imperium, to prioritise that dynamic into the game's core paths to a win. It's not a tweak, it's a conscious change to follow the book's narrative arc.
Thank you for the insight on the game! For a quick clarification, on the 6 player game mode, Muad'Dib cannot get Maker Hooks, one of the 2 allies has to get it for the other.
Muad'dib can go to sietch and give maker's hooks to both allies. Yes, he cannot have hooks himself, he doesn't need them. He is considered to have hooks while his ally has them.
@@hidden-assets In the Six-Player rulebook there is no indication that the Maker Hook symbol is solved with the activated ally and since he does not have a Maker Hook spot, I asume he cannot get it for others. Only the Gain Influence, Troop, Sandworm, and Sword symbols are solved with the activated ally. I think that would make sense since it is extremely easy for Muad'Dib to get into Sietch Tabr.
@@lefcandy I have been told this is how it works by Scott, president of Dire Wolf, who taught me the mode. Also it has been confirmed by Paul Dennen on BGG that Muad'dib can give his team hooks by going to Tab'R. Just reporting what I know.
@@lefcandy no worries. I find the rules as written in the 6-player guide to be lacking a lot of specifics and examples. Happy worming! (Unless you're the Emperor!) 😜
Worm double rewards could be changed to you winning your reward plus the reward for lower tier (e.g. 1st place win gets 1st and 2nd rewards; 2nd place win gets 2nd and 3rd rewards; 3rd place win gets just their one 3rd place reward or even double 3rd would probably be balanced as well. This nerfs worms slightly but is still rewarding and eliminates combats where worm player(s) are trying for 2nd Place rewards on certain Conflict IIs. Also, would eliminate the swingy 4+ VP rounds and the large disparity of final scores on games that were actually close.
My only possible issue with this is that a few times, 2nd place rewards would be paying for the 1st tier rewards. Not sure how clean that is but I think the overall concept is solid.
@@BlackShadow993 True but my thought was if you are removing the double effect on 1st place free VPs, the bonus second place reward allows them to buy another 1st place VP is essentially still a slight nerf to worms because now they have to pay resources for the bonus VP(s) and not just getting free double VP and ability to buy more. That being said, I have not analyzed all the Conflict reward to see how my suggestion would play out.
I like the idea that worms can double any rewards apart from straight victory points. So you can get double: faction bumps, troops, water etc, as well as VPs where you pay say 6 solari for 1VP (on a level 3 card etc). But just not the free VPs on the 1st place rewards, which help slow down the 5VP in a turn combat rewards.
I like the new mechanics ,especially spy. But i miss the old stuff, which can be integrated but not that easy as the rulebook says with few sentences. In my opinion needs a lot of house rules to work together .So i don't like the way dire wolf presented.I get it business is business. They could just said you can, but we not made this for the old game. Anyway now i am working on my own rules for the ultimate version which is fun, but I fear the house rules will divide the community.
Customisation is good in theory but there are also benefits of a uniform way to play something. Competition wise that's easy enough, you just stick to the base stuff. But some splintering is possible. Will have to be watched over...
Awesome podcast, one thing though, which I thought was going to be the clear way forward. You spoke about integrating a lot of things and it won't work. Why not just use just uprising stuff but import leaders only? I honestly thought that was going to be the way competitive was going to be played from now on. Uprising base + all leaders
i think i mostly agree with everything said, but i slightly disagree on most of the negative things you said. overall i think this game blows away the previous versions, it would feel really bad to go back to them i think, even though those versions had been among my favorite board games. the conflicts being so important in the tier 2 stages is great, every conflict seems so critical, i love it, it's so intense and dramatic. the more i have played i think the worms are fairly well balanced in 4 player, but there has to be an understanding at the table that you gang up on them whenever they try to put worms into combat without a lot of troops. i agree paul is both boring and too good, especially in 2/3 player. Check out one of cheesable's latest streams, the paul there wins and never even gets his hooks, so he doesn't have to be boring but he is still good. mostly this player just played really well and got great end game intrigues, but i also i think it's because that signet ring extra card draw is more powerful in this version. one thing i don't follow is that there are complaints that the 2nd tier conflicts are too strong and they snowball to a win, and also complaints that the 3rd tier conflicts are too strong, those seem like contrasting ideas. for context, i have about 70+ plays of 2/3 player now, and i think paul+worms, the snowballs seems strong, but from watching many 4 player games, the extra player seems to change things a lot. we played like 30+ games of 2/3 player cookie cutter paul strategy, and what i don't like is it can hinge a lot on cards he can get the first round, if he can get stilgar fist round, (stilgar is 2 troops in agent box), it almost feels like the game is over (or even a better card, technically even overthrow is possible with perfect draw - seek allies to fremen draw, ring to arakeen/contract spot, then last 2 cards in deck have to be daggers - and this is exactly why the 2 persuasion intrigue card should NOT be allowed in this game - imagine going to assembly hall and drawing that turn 1 with overthrow in the row - also gurney and maybe the spy leaders can pull off similar shenanigans but similarly with a lot of luck on card draw). i liked the length of this review, this game is so amazing to me, so i appreciate all the discussion!
I love Shadow but he always speaks over the other speakers and interrupts them. Please listen and see how often you won't let people complete their sentences. Hopefully, this will lead to more listening in the future and less interrupting
I appreciate it@@Apeescape490 , it is tough and would much rather be able to do these in person but a 11 hour flight each time...not sure that'll work.
Well genius, instead of crying about points on conflict cards, why not attempt a bit of play balance and have a house rule to exstend the game to 12 turns and experience the results, it should have been included as an optional rule. Try it out, geniuses, don't be afraid😊
I really like the idea of a mechanic for defusing/countering detonations and/or reinforcing or rebuilding the shield wall. Just needs an added layer to create more dynamic strategies/defenses against end-game worms. CJ mentioned a once-per-game "Family Atomics-style" retreat mechanic, which was also a good idea but maybe that could be implemented for shield defense. Every player gets a one-time use shield token, which can be used in two ways: 1) Defuse: Use shield token and recall spy on Spice Refinery, Arrakeen, and Imperial Basin (maybe even Sietch Tabr) immediately at the time another player attempts to break the wall and you defuse/counter their attempt 2) Rebuild/Repair Wall: Use shield token at the end of a round to rebuild/replace the Shield Wall (maybe add a resource cost to this as well).
I'm not sure what the best idea would be but don't think there's harm in at least exploring it. I would assume DW already have a bit.
Maybe a Plot/Combat Intrigue card "The Voice"
3 Influence with BG: Cancel an Intrigue card that an opponent played.
Or maybe you need an alliance with BG. Just an idea.
@@Shad0wSix Putting it behind an alliance is not likely, I believe Paul originally planned for worm access to be behind 3 fremen friendship but testing proved it wasn't used much. So not a bad idea but not likely
The biggest missed opportunity for me was not introducing a new starting deck. Obviously the starting deck works, it held up though Ix and Immo and plays great. But with a new board, it would have been nice to see some new/more interesting starting hands. Especially if we could get rid of the terrible draws like double dagger and double convincing with a random starting card. I know there are more draw spaces to smooth those out, but there is nothing set in stone that D:I must be so cumbersome with its opening/second hands. I think there are many variations of 10 starting cards that could be devised with a mix of locations and persuasion to mix things up a bit. Alas. Maybe for the 3rd movie they will give it a try.
💯 from me. This is noted toward the end of the pod (sorry for the length). I wish there were new decks to start and experiment with.
I decided to substitute one of the dune desert planets for the epic mode IX card - control the spice, same triangle access, but can help give spice/start trashing out other starting cards.
great review! i agree that round 7 and above are super fun. My playing group now starts at 0 instead of 1 to encourage game to go longer
I really don’t understand how worm strength of 4 was too strong. In the design diaries Paul said that it was very hard to fight against that. Getting 4 strength for 1 water is not too strong, it’s basically the same thing as hardy warriors. 8 strength for 3 water is also not too strong in my opinion. Doubled rewards however are way stronger than just 1 strength per worm. I would be curious to see whether worms with 4 strength are really that hard to fight against.
These changes might show up in the next Kanly...
The extra emphasis on the Conflict phase in Uprising is (surely) thematic as Dune Part Two. The book ends with the Fremen / Atreides achieving a sweeping victory in battle over Harkonnen and Sardaukar troops with (yes) sand worms as a key part of the strategy. As much as political scheming and economic levers played a part, you can't take control of Arrakis without military victory. It makes complete sense for Uprising, then, as the sequel to Imperium, to prioritise that dynamic into the game's core paths to a win. It's not a tweak, it's a conscious change to follow the book's narrative arc.
Great review!! I agree with most of the things you said - and I’m of course down to play a 6 player game 😎. Although tbh I still haven’t played it
Definitely one of the things I'd like to dig into more.
Thank you for the insight on the game! For a quick clarification, on the 6 player game mode, Muad'Dib cannot get Maker Hooks, one of the 2 allies has to get it for the other.
Muad'dib can go to sietch and give maker's hooks to both allies. Yes, he cannot have hooks himself, he doesn't need them. He is considered to have hooks while his ally has them.
@@hidden-assets In the Six-Player rulebook there is no indication that the Maker Hook symbol is solved with the activated ally and since he does not have a Maker Hook spot, I asume he cannot get it for others. Only the Gain Influence, Troop, Sandworm, and Sword symbols are solved with the activated ally.
I think that would make sense since it is extremely easy for Muad'Dib to get into Sietch Tabr.
@@lefcandy I have been told this is how it works by Scott, president of Dire Wolf, who taught me the mode. Also it has been confirmed by Paul Dennen on BGG that Muad'dib can give his team hooks by going to Tab'R. Just reporting what I know.
@@hidden-assets Oh man.
All right, thank you for the information, maybe that will appear in the FAQ pdf later.
@@lefcandy no worries. I find the rules as written in the 6-player guide to be lacking a lot of specifics and examples. Happy worming! (Unless you're the Emperor!) 😜
Worm double rewards could be changed to you winning your reward plus the reward for lower tier (e.g. 1st place win gets 1st and 2nd rewards; 2nd place win gets 2nd and 3rd rewards; 3rd place win gets just their one 3rd place reward or even double 3rd would probably be balanced as well. This nerfs worms slightly but is still rewarding and eliminates combats where worm player(s) are trying for 2nd Place rewards on certain Conflict IIs. Also, would eliminate the swingy 4+ VP rounds and the large disparity of final scores on games that were actually close.
Like this idea 💡💡💡
My only possible issue with this is that a few times, 2nd place rewards would be paying for the 1st tier rewards. Not sure how clean that is but I think the overall concept is solid.
@@BlackShadow993 True but my thought was if you are removing the double effect on 1st place free VPs, the bonus second place reward allows them to buy another 1st place VP is essentially still a slight nerf to worms because now they have to pay resources for the bonus VP(s) and not just getting free double VP and ability to buy more. That being said, I have not analyzed all the Conflict reward to see how my suggestion would play out.
@@julespaco I'd also be cool with "choose one reward and double it"
I like the idea that worms can double any rewards apart from straight victory points. So you can get double: faction bumps, troops, water etc, as well as VPs where you pay say 6 solari for 1VP (on a level 3 card etc). But just not the free VPs on the 1st place rewards, which help slow down the 5VP in a turn combat rewards.
amazing, thank you
Great review. Loved it
Appreciate it, didn't think we went so long though!
I like the new mechanics ,especially spy. But i miss the old stuff, which can be integrated but not that easy as the rulebook says with few sentences. In my opinion needs a lot of house rules to work together .So i don't like the way dire wolf presented.I get it business is business. They could just said you can, but we not made this for the old game. Anyway now i am working on my own rules for the ultimate version which is fun, but I fear the house rules will divide the community.
Customisation is good in theory but there are also benefits of a uniform way to play something. Competition wise that's easy enough, you just stick to the base stuff. But some splintering is possible. Will have to be watched over...
Awesome podcast, one thing though, which I thought was going to be the clear way forward. You spoke about integrating a lot of things and it won't work. Why not just use just uprising stuff but import leaders only? I honestly thought that was going to be the way competitive was going to be played from now on. Uprising base + all leaders
The old leaders are miles above the Uprising leaders, sadly. They are fun to integrate though.
This is a dumb question but do you still need a card with access to go to the space when "infiltrating" with a spy?
Yep, have to have the card.
i think i mostly agree with everything said, but i slightly disagree on most of the negative things you said. overall i think this game blows away the previous versions, it would feel really bad to go back to them i think, even though those versions had been among my favorite board games. the conflicts being so important in the tier 2 stages is great, every conflict seems so critical, i love it, it's so intense and dramatic.
the more i have played i think the worms are fairly well balanced in 4 player, but there has to be an understanding at the table that you gang up on them whenever they try to put worms into combat without a lot of troops.
i agree paul is both boring and too good, especially in 2/3 player. Check out one of cheesable's latest streams, the paul there wins and never even gets his hooks, so he doesn't have to be boring but he is still good. mostly this player just played really well and got great end game intrigues, but i also i think it's because that signet ring extra card draw is more powerful in this version.
one thing i don't follow is that there are complaints that the 2nd tier conflicts are too strong and they snowball to a win, and also complaints that the 3rd tier conflicts are too strong, those seem like contrasting ideas. for context, i have about 70+ plays of 2/3 player now, and i think paul+worms, the snowballs seems strong, but from watching many 4 player games, the extra player seems to change things a lot. we played like 30+ games of 2/3 player cookie cutter paul strategy, and what i don't like is it can hinge a lot on cards he can get the first round, if he can get stilgar fist round, (stilgar is 2 troops in agent box), it almost feels like the game is over (or even a better card, technically even overthrow is possible with perfect draw - seek allies to fremen draw, ring to arakeen/contract spot, then last 2 cards in deck have to be daggers - and this is exactly why the 2 persuasion intrigue card should NOT be allowed in this game - imagine going to assembly hall and drawing that turn 1 with overthrow in the row - also gurney and maybe the spy leaders can pull off similar shenanigans but similarly with a lot of luck on card draw).
i liked the length of this review, this game is so amazing to me, so i appreciate all the discussion!
I love Shadow but he always speaks over the other speakers and interrupts them. Please listen and see how often you won't let people complete their sentences. Hopefully, this will lead to more listening in the future and less interrupting
It's tricky over a net call, when in person you can kinda read people better and I was muting my mic loads here. Sorry for that.
@@BlackShadow993fwiw thought you were totally fine Shadow. Thought it flowed well, especially for a net call
I appreciate it@@Apeescape490 , it is tough and would much rather be able to do these in person but a 11 hour flight each time...not sure that'll work.
@@Apeescape490 i agree, didn't notice it at all, in fact i would go as far to say it was exactly how i would want a podcast dialogue to be
Well genius, instead of crying about points on conflict cards, why not attempt a bit of play balance and have a house rule to exstend the game to 12 turns and experience the results, it should have been included as an optional rule. Try it out, geniuses, don't be afraid😊
Because most people in the community play with RAW. And there's no need to be condescending.