Game: Nanuuk!

Image

HRune — 2008-03-21T17:25:23+00:00

The playing pieces of the 2nd edition

Image

HRune — 2008-03-21T17:23:51+00:00

2nd edition: what's in the box

Image

HRune — 2008-03-21T17:22:43+00:00

Boxcover of the 2nd edition

Image

puppi — 2004-09-07T22:23:18+00:00

Image

gonzo104 — 2004-07-19T22:03:39+00:00

Image

MarkEJohnson — 2004-05-28T22:58:58+00:00

Image

MarkEJohnson — 2004-05-28T22:58:58+00:00

Image

EYE of NiGHT — 2003-09-22T11:59:43+00:00

Nanuuk! - box cover

Thread: Session Report

BoardGameGeek — 2002-01-14T23:37:01+00:00

Played by: Jeph and Chris
After purchasing this game on a christmas sale from germangames.com, we decided to give the two player game a try. Our hunters started out in separate igloos and tried to collect as many prey as we could. But every step you take causes the ice to fracture, and you can not cross a fracture. But in the igloo you can change your animals into different tools. You can make a kayak that allows you to move over one crack in the ice or make a dog and sled team that allows you one extra move. But as Chris found out, these tools are bought with the points that win you the game. The first game we both gathered various animals and dropped them off at the igloos. But here our statagies changed as Chris bought some tools and went out to hunt again, I went out to block off chris from returning to the igloo. My statagy barely worked and I won the first game.
Results: Jeph, Chris
For the second game we placed the animals in a random fashion which seemed to work fine. The game started in the same fashion as the first but this time I went hunting again after the first return to the igloo. But our hunting paths crossed and we both ended up running from the cracking ice. Chris won this one by collecting more animals.
Results: Chris, Jeph

Thread: General Comment

BoardGameGeek — 2002-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

This fine game has been unfairly maligned by two Greg's. At the
funagain website, the first Greg doesn't really seem to explain
why he doesn't like it except that he doesn't find the decisionmaking
interesting. The second, Greg Schloesser, played the entire game
with the wrong rules, thinking it was all about keeping the opposing
players from returning to an igloo. When he discovered that this
was wrong, he blamed the game for his own errant strategy. At the
same time, he claims that the outcome just went to Ted because he
was "the most merciless" without bothering to do any study of the
tactics that Ted used to win and why his skill in play was greater.
Greg probably owes the game another play with the correct rules in
mind (and preferably with the full four rather than just three
players). All those who've not played the game should know that
despite these previews (probably based on a single play), there is
a very nice game in there. Just consider these comments by famed
reviewer Mike Siggins: "It has a nice structure, a neatly constricted
field of play and a nicely entropic end game. I thought it surprisingly
good, likely to appeal rather more to the abstract experts, with
some very clever ideas and excellent theme-to-system linkage." He's
right, this is a game much more akin to a good abstract in play,
if not in flavor. There is no luck whasoever, only the actions of
the other players to deal with. This game should particularly
appeal to long-range planners with the ability to look ahead and
foresee the eventual consequences of player actions. For example,
it can be quite interesting to try to isolate a competitor from
the good hunting grounds, but it's a dicey proposition as the player
who tries this may end up being hoist on his own petard. In any
case, it's just one example of the many interesting decisions.
The large and fun-looking wooden pieces are just icing on the cake.

Image

2001-03-05T20:58:28+00:00