Game: Big Manitou

Image

GSReis — 2008-07-29T04:26:06+00:00

Card backs (hi-res)

Thread: Re: Quick review from Ludo-Outaouais

Dhunam — 2008-01-13T16:11:03+00:00

My bad for the mistake on the way to play Hunters, I played another game from What's your game (Ghost for sale) and I just got a brain farth. Sorry about that...

As for the rule booklet, I still think it's clear, and very well illustrated (even though english is not my first language...)

Thread: Re: Quick review from Ludo-Outaouais

Drew1365 — 2008-01-11T18:44:00+00:00

Stradk wrote:
I think the rules for this game is quite impossible to figure out.. The rules booklet is NOT well designed at all..

Well, the English rules are poorly-translated, but if you think about what the translator is trying to say, you can figure it out. I thought it was all pretty clear.

Thread: Re: Quick review from Ludo-Outaouais

Stradk — 2008-01-11T18:33:04+00:00

I think the rules for this game is quite impossible to figure out.. The rules booklet is NOT well designed at all..

Thread: Re: Quick review from Ludo-Outaouais

LoneCleric — 2008-01-11T18:31:44+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
But do you really play the hunter cards face-down? I missed that when going over the rules. It would seem to make more sense to play them face up.
I'm pretty sure they are face up.

Dave, didn't we play this together? I know I've always played face up. Are you back on the crazy juice or something?

Thread: Re: Quick review from Ludo-Outaouais

Drew1365 — 2008-01-11T18:10:22+00:00

I have this but have not yet gotten it to the table. I really want to try it.

But do you really play the hunter cards face-down? I missed that when going over the rules. It would seem to make more sense to play them face up.

Thread: Quick review from Ludo-Outaouais

Dhunam — 2008-01-11T16:44:11+00:00

Good morning! This is one of many reviews that we wanted to do after receiving many games for our latest Ludo-Outaouais convention (www.ludo-outaouais.org). So, after much delay, this is it:

Components:
Well, it’s a card game and the card stock is great. Aside from that, the cut-out tiles are easy to detach and made of very thick stock. Comes with two huge wooden token (for the Horse and Totem leader) and a nice cloth bag to put the tiles in. Well designed rule booklet with nice quick reference cards.

Gameplay:
It’s a rock, paper, scissor concept with a twist. Each player starts the game with its own deck of Indians (Heroes and Hunters, everyone has the same cards), choose some cards from it (the amount vary depending on the turn order), and draw 3 from which they’ll play on one of the available Hunting ground. Each Hero Beat a certain amount of Heroes but is beat by some as well. The last standing Hero will have first choice from the Hunting ground stack, the player with the most Hunters will have second choice (taking 2 tiles), the second most will take the remaining tile if available, and so on. The game is played in 4 round at the winner is the player with the most points (smallest score between Bison and Tepee).

Review:
For whatever reason, we had some issues explaining the gameplay to our girlfriends on our first game, but it didn’t stop them from kicking our butt in the long run. The whole concept of going for the first tile with the Heroes or hoping to get 2 good tiles with the Hunters is very well implemented and makes for some good bluffing and strategizing. Of course, the luck of the draw will most definitely affect the game, but for me, it just added an element of fun. The game plays very quickly and is relatively easy to explain. Great starter of filler. Will be played again for sure. Check out our session pictures as well.

Thread: Re: Review

mitnachtKAUBO-I — 2006-12-12T08:57:28+00:00

seppo21 wrote:
If you had the original rules, could you play the original game with this updated edition?
No. There are not enough warrior cards in Big Manitou.

Image

hotrodqt — 2006-12-12T04:59:40+00:00

Image

hotrodqt — 2006-12-12T04:57:05+00:00

Image

hotrodqt — 2006-12-12T04:50:41+00:00

Image

hotrodqt — 2006-12-12T04:48:26+00:00

Fresh out of the box!

Image

hotrodqt — 2006-12-12T04:47:58+00:00

Thread: So how many cards do I get to use?

Stradk — 2006-12-07T09:48:35+00:00

There are a little too many rules questions coming up when I play this game so decided once and for all to get some clearance of what is the right rules for this..

The revised english rules say that in a 2-player game the first player gets 8 cards and the second player gets 7. That is all clear for the first hunt.. The 8th card goes under the tribecard together with the rest of the unused cards. Then comes the second hunt.. Do we still choose 7 and 8 cards or do we simply use the rest of the unused cards?

Another question about that is if it is the same player who has 8 cards in the 1st and 3rd round or if it same player who has 8 cards in the 1st and 4th hunt? The rules don't really say..

Hope someone can help me out with some clarifcation on this

Thread: Re: Another rule question: Determination of hunting ground order

Ozvortex — 2006-10-29T17:43:24+00:00

The original english rules say that the hunting ground to the "left" is resolved first. You'll notice in the rules where they have an illustration of how the hunting grounds are laid out for variable players that the first hunting ground is on the left. In the second illustration where it shows you how to lay your hero and hunter cards it has the same tile layout as the 3-4 player example in the first illustration. Although the hunting grounds in the second illustration are now laid out from top to bottom they are individually entitled 'first hunting ground', 'second hunting ground' and 'third hunting ground' reading from the top down. This is futher evidence to indicate that the hunting ground to the "left" is actually the first hunting ground you lay on the table. You would resolve the hunting grounds in the following order: left to right, ie., first to third.

Image

cktjharris — 2006-08-06T17:12:38+00:00

Artwork from the back of each player deck

Thread: Re: Mumblilng about tiles distribution

bucklen_uk — 2006-06-14T11:35:43+00:00

SwedeLad wrote:
I posted this in another article, but I think it applies here since it looks like both of you guys are scoring the Teepees & Buffaloes incorrectly.

I think the easiest way to figure out the Teepee/Buffalo scoring is just compare the two totals. The lesser total (Teepees OR Buffaloes) is your score for Teepee/Buffalo scoring.

That's right - exactly how I do it too. Actual tiles are irrelevant it's the total number of Buffalo/Teepee pairs you eventually end up with.

Thread: Re: Mumblilng about tiles distribution

SwedeLad — 2006-06-14T10:41:05+00:00

I posted this in another article, but I think it applies here since it looks like both of you guys are scoring the Teepees & Buffaloes incorrectly.

I think the easiest way to figure out the Teepee/Buffalo scoring is just compare the two totals. The lesser total (Teepees OR Buffaloes) is your score for Teepee/Buffalo scoring.

For example:

If I have 4 Teepee points and 1 Buffalo point...
My score would be 1 for Teepee/Buffalo scoring since 1 is the lower total.

If I have 2 Teepee points and 3 Buffalo points...
My score would be 2.

If I have 5 Teepee and 0 Buffalo...
My score is 0 for Teepee/Buffalo scoring.

That is the easiest and simplest way to explain it. Essentially, you just match up Teepees and Buffaloes point for point.

Thread: Re: Another rule question: Determination of hunting ground order

Aldaron — 2006-06-06T01:29:05+00:00

Tycho wrote:
I'm pretty sure the answer is that it matters not at all which one you start with[...]
For the most part, that's true, but it matters in rare cases, if "immediately"* in the rules on who gets the the cylinders means "as soon as a tile is taken" rather than "after all hunting grounds have been scored".

Tycho wrote:
[...]provided that the players agree on the order of evaluation before they play their cards.
That's correct. In this case there's an easy workaround (just agree on any order before playing cards). Many of the other ambiguities (and errors) in the original rules are not so easily managed though#.

* http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/101227
# http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/105200

Thread: Re: Another rule question: Determination of hunting ground o

Tycho — 2006-06-05T23:35:51+00:00

I'm pretty sure the answer is that it matters not at all which one you start with, provided that the players agree on the order of evaluation before they play their cards.

I quite like the game, and though it's frustrating to not be sure how the designer intended it to be played, it really doesn't matter provided that you enjoy it the way you play it.

Thread: Re: Another rule question: Determination of hunting ground order

Aldaron — 2006-06-05T16:26:45+00:00

Sure enough, another rules bug (even in the essential translation) in this very buggy game! I've been playing two-player, so the absurdity of this rule was never noticed, but you're right: it makes no sense as written.

This one really hasn't been worth the effort.

Thread: Another rule question: Determination of hunting ground order

EyeInSky — 2006-06-05T15:00:25+00:00

I have one more question regarding this game...

I'm a bit confused as to how the ORDER of hunting grounds is resolved. We do realize there are 3 different "hunting grounds" and the amount of tiles/chits for each ground varies depending on the # of players. The sequence order of which hunting ground is resolved first is very important as it WILL make a difference of who ultimately gets the horse & totem pawns after all 3 have finally been resolved.

Does the person to the left of the start player choose the order? Is it the start player that gets to choose? The vital translation available on BGG doesn't make much sense either: "The three hunting grounds are now evaluated one at a time, starting with the hunting ground to the left of the first player, as follows..." HUH?!?!?

Or... should the hunting ground order simply just go Hunting Ground #1, Hunting Ground #2, then Hunting Ground #3 (the same order as placed on the table for example)?

Thanks in advance.

Thread: Re: Tepee/Buffalo question (for matching/scoring)

SwedeLad — 2006-05-14T02:50:42+00:00

I agree Roy. The re-working of the rules is a must for anyone new to the game. I tipped the guy who put it there some well-deserved GG.

Thread: Re: Tepee/Buffalo question (for matching/scoring)

Aldaron — 2006-05-05T17:23:05+00:00

SwedeLad wrote:
All this double talk about "matching tiles" or "pairing" is silly. Just take the lesser of the two, and there's your score!
That's right; that's the most straightforward method.

I think the reason for the confusion though isn't that people are having trouble figuring out how to implement the correct rules -- its that they are having trouble figuring out what the correct rules are.

The rules that come with the game are are hard to decipher on this point (especially, and on many others as well): the text is perfectly ambiguous, and the example is wrong. The posted rules corrections* are essential!

* http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=15500

Thread: Re: Tepee/Buffalo question (for matching/scoring)

SwedeLad — 2006-05-05T13:18:02+00:00

crazyjack wrote:
I've only played a couple of games, but my understanding is that it is half the total of all Teepees and Buffaloes, rounded down. So in your example the tiles would score 5 victory points.

You can't score it that way Chad. By your rules, if I had 8 Teepees, but NO Buffalo, my score would be 4... but this is incorrect because every Teepee point relies on a Buffalo point in order for you to score one point, and vice versa. In your example, there would be NO difference between a Teepee or a Buffalo. Just conduct scoring as my examples above show, and you can't go wrong. Enjoy.

Thread: Re: Tepee/Buffalo question (for matching/scoring)

SwedeLad — 2006-05-05T13:10:57+00:00

I think the easiest way to figure out the Teepee/Buffalo scoring is just compare the two totals. The lesser total (Teepees OR Buffaloes) is your score for Teepee/Buffalo scoring.

For example:

If I have 4 Teepee points and 1 Buffalo point...
My score would be 1 for Teepee/Buffalo scoring since 1 is the lower total.

If I have 2 Teepee points and 3 Buffalo points...
My score would be 2.

If I have 5 Teepee and 0 Buffalo...
My score is 0 for Teepee/Buffalo scoring.

That is the easiest and simplest way to explain it. All this double talk about "matching tiles" or "pairing" is silly. Just take the lesser of the two, and there's your score!

Thread: Re: Tepee/Buffalo question (for matching/scoring)

Aldaron — 2006-05-04T13:59:41+00:00

Chris Dorrell wrote:
OK - I just downloaded the revised rules and now I'm confused. They quite clearly state that you do score for Tepee/Buffalo pairs!
That's right. The English rules that come with the game are a mess (so bad, in fact, that I initially gave up on the game and added it to the "Games that didn't surivive set-up and first reading of the rules." list.*) Confusion about scoring is just one of the problems, so the posted fixed rules# are essential.

* http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist.php3?action=view&listi...

# http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=15500

Image

frappy — 2006-05-03T15:45:52+00:00

Thread: Re: Tepee/Buffalo question (for matching/scoring)

Chris Dorrell — 2006-04-28T10:51:52+00:00

I thought this would cause debate when I first read the rules.

I believe that it is quite clear in both the English and German rules, included with the game, that you score the total of Tipis + Buffaloes divided by two and rounded down. The example gives:-

Tipi x 3
Tipi x 1

Buff x 3
Buff x 2

and says:
"He scores 4 victory points.
If he had held one Tipi or one Buffaloes tile more in hand he would score 5 victory points."

If the scoring was based on one point per pair of Tipi and Buffalo then an extra Tipi would give 5 points but an extra Buffalo would leave the score at 4 points.

Having said that, the idea of scoring only for pairs would be an interesting variant. It would also give a reason for having Tipis, other than flavour. With the rules as printed the Tipis might as well be Buffaloes.

Chris

Additional edit:-

OK - I just downloaded the revised rules and now I'm confused. They quite clearly state that you do score for Tepee/Buffalo pairs! So I guess that's official.

It does add a nice twist to the game.

Chris

Thread: Re: Tepee/Buffalo question (for matching/scoring)

Jim_P — 2006-04-22T05:20:11+00:00

Teepees must be paired with Buffalos... your example would score 5.

If you had:

3 x Teepee
3 x Teepee
1 x Teepee
+
3 x Buffalo
2 x Buffalo

You would still only score 5 VPs (not 6 as crazyjack would have you believe) because you still only have 5 teepee/buffalo pairs.

Thread: Re: Tepee/Buffalo question (for matching/scoring)

crazyjack — 2006-03-29T15:04:58+00:00

I've only played a couple of games, but my understanding is that it is half the total of all Teepees and Buffaloes, rounded down. So in your example the tiles would score 5 victory points.

Thread: Tepee/Buffalo question (for matching/scoring)

EyeInSky — 2006-03-29T08:31:32+00:00

In the new translated rules, it states:

1-2 Tepees/Buffaloes: It is usually necessary to collect these tiles in order to win the game since they normally provide the most victory points at the end of the game. Each pair of Tepees/Buffaloes scores 1 victory point. The number marked on these tiles shows the number of Tepees or Buffaloes that the tile represents.

Example: Alex holds one x 3 Tepee tile, one x 1 Tepee tile, one x 3 Buffaloes tile and one x 2 Buffaloes tile. He scores 4 victory points. If he had acquired one more Tepee tile, then he would have scored 5 victory points.

With this example, it suggests you can match two 1x Teepee tiles with one 2x Buffalo tile. If this is true, then the scoring is simply based on the TOTAL tepees & buffalos from ALL tiles, correct?

In other words, with this example below...

3x Tepee
1x Tepee
1x Tepee
+
3x Buffalo
2x Buffalo

Would THIS combination of tiles score 4 or 5 points?

Thank you,
Sheldon

Thread: [Review] Big Manitou

TomVasel — 2006-03-25T09:44:09+00:00

I was in the middle of my first game of Big Manitou (What's Your Game, 2005 - Gunter Burkhardt) when I suddenly realized that I was playing a "Eurogame". Of course, I have hundreds of "Eurogames", but there is a stereotype of many Eurogames in that they are considered themeless and dry and mechanical. For some reason, Big Manitou, though fun, gave me the feeling that if there were a game the personified this accused "lifelessness", it would be this one.

Please don't get me wrong, Big Manitou is a very interesting, good game. It has very nice components and plays well with room for some good strategy. But it certainly doesn’t feel like an Indian hunt, which is the theme of the game. Big Manitou also seems to have a learning curve of at least one game and offers a lot more strategic options than one might think on the onset. While I won't play the game for its theme, the mechanics are intriguing; and I'm still thinking about my tactics for the next game.

Each player (up to five) is given a deck of eighteen cards in their color. The cards include ten hunter cards (numbered one through ten), two chieftains, two squaws, one scout, one rain maker, and one medicine man. A pile of tiles is shuffled and mixed in a cloth bag, and two wooden cylinders (the totem and the horse) are set to the side. One player is the dealer for the first hunt (of three to five hunts - depending on number of players).

Each hunt occurs the same way, with the dealer drawing the "booty" tiles from the bag and forming three hunting grounds - each a group of two to four tiles, depending on the number of players. Each player then chooses from among their cards a certain number to use for the first hunt. The first player chooses nine, the next player(s) eight, and the last player seven. Players then shuffle the cards they have picked and draw the top three cards into their hand. The starting player goes first with play proceeding clockwise around the table.

On a turn, a player plays one of their cards face up next to one of the three hunting grounds. They then draw a card from their deck to replace their card. This continues until players have placed seven cards, at which time the hunt ends. During the hunt, as cards are being played, Warrior cards are simply placed down and stay until the end of the round. Hero cards (all the non-Warrior ones) are played differently, however. Each hero is either stronger or weaker than the others - for example, the Medicine Man is stronger than the Rain Maker and the Squaw but weaker than the Chieftain and the Scout. When two heroes are played at the same group of tiles, the stronger one defeats the other one, causing it to be turned face down. Cards of equal strength destroy each other, and a player can play two heroes at the same location to make their position even stronger.

At the end of the hunt, players first decide who attracts the leather thief. The player with the highest sum showing on their Hunter cards must discard a tepee or buffalo tile. Then, each hunting ground (group of tiles) is evaluated, giving the player with the hero there (if any) the choice of any one tile with the player with the highest hunter sum chooses next, taking two tiles; and the second player with the most hunter takes any remaining tiles. All played cards are then discarded, and unused cards are shuffled for the second hunt with a new player becoming the first player. Every other round, players can choose their hunt cards once again.

There are five types of booty tiles, the most common being the teepee and buffalo tiles. At the end of the game, each pair of teepees and buffaloes score one victory point (some tiles count as more than one tepee/buffalo). Tomahawk tiles add to the sum of every hunter card played (if I have two tomahawk tiles, and a "7" and a "3" at a location, it is now as if I have a "9" and "5" laid down. Totem tiles are useful, because the player with the most (or first to get the most) takes the totem token. In future hunts, they may place an eight card after all other players are finished. The player with the most horse tokens gets the white horse token, which allows them to move one card to a different location at the end of a hunt.

After the final hunt, points are totaled, with each pair of tepee/buffalo scoring one point. The player with the most tomahawks gets one point, the player with the horse gains one point, and the player with the totem receives one point. The player with the most points is the winner!

Some comments on the game…

1.) Components: The cards are not only high quality, but the illustrations on them are fantastic, showing Native Americans in beautiful array. The tiles are of a good thickness, and they, the chunky wooden cylinders, and the cloth bag of tiles barely fit in the smallish box. Components are fairly good for this game, but I'll give the artwork a tremendous grade.

2.) Rules: The rulebook is six full color pages long; and although there are a few snafus due to translation, it's very easy to understand. I've been able to teach it with very few problems. There is one rule, however, that is just confusing and fiddly - and that's the amount of cards each player starts with. "Did I have seven or eight cards?" is a question often mentioned in the games. I suppose that there is some strategic significance, with the player going first having more cards, etc., it's just a pain in the neck. I'm not sure that tactical considerations are equivalent to the annoyance of remembering how many cards you're supposed to draw. Why not just have everyone use half of their cards? Other than that, however, the rules are easy - the hero powers are basically a more complicated version of paper-rock-scissors.

3.) Points: When first going over the rules, I saw that the person with the most tomahawks got an extra victory point. "Big Deal", I thought - one measly point. Well, Big Manitou has some of the lowest scores I've ever seen in a game, with "5" being a large score. Therefore, this brings sharply to focus the fact that every point is critically important, and players therefore cannot make one false move. A player who has a terrible first hunt - not getting any booty tiles - can fall dreadfully behind, and experienced players won't allow him to catch up.

4.) Cards: In one of our games, one player denounced the fact that players picked their cards to use each turn, stating that random picks would be equally as good. However, after trying this out, I can state unequivocally that this is certainly not so. I chose all heroes and got totally devastated; and the next round, with all warriors, things were just as bad. In fact, choosing cards is a big part of the game - almost like building a deck in a collectible card game. Knowing where to play the cards is another matter. A player can play two heroes to one spot, hoping to claim that spot; but is it worth the extra cards?

5.) Tactics: The hero cards are important, because they allow a person to take the first tile from a group; but having the most warrior cards is often better, since you get two tiles! However, the game has a clever mechanic in which the person with the most warrior points must lose a buffalo/tepee tile, which can be rather annoying. Knowing which tile to take is also important - should one take another tomahawk to buff up their future hunts, or attempt to get the totem or horse?

6.) Fun Factor: The game is a fun exercise for those who like a slow auction, which the game basically is; but it can be frustrating for some people. I've often seen a turn in which a player, because of the way that the game worked out, got NOTHING from any of the three hunts. This can really bother some people, but a pure tactician might enjoy taking their chances like this. So far, the game seems to work best with three people, as four or five lessens your chances to get anything from a hunt.

If a small score, unforgiving choices, and rather interesting options interest you, then Big Manitou is certainly a game you might enjoy. No one will probably get into the theme, in which players hunt for tomahawks and tepees, but the gameplay is certainly solid. It's a bit unforgiving for new players, and a costly mistake will most likely cause a player to lose the game. Still, once all players know what's going on, Big Manitou rises above the thematic failings and is an interesting card 'n tile game.

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"
www.tomvasel.com

Thread: Re: Mumblilng about tiles distribution

RoSKoMaNTe — 2006-03-25T07:31:19+00:00

bucklen_uk wrote:
Maybe you're right - distribution doesn't look even certainly

However I haven't noticed it having a major impact in game play once you know the buffalo are in short supply I just means that players put more effort into taking buffalo, so great heroes tend to appear at a hunt where buffalo are present (for example).

Nigel, you are right.

But... as I stated before, in our first play we draw a grand total of 2 buffalo tiles, these were all drawn in the third hunt.
I have to say that my first play was totally unsatisfactory... sure it didn't left the will to try the game again...

Ciao,
S.

Thread: 2 Player?

100%Blade — 2006-03-24T10:56:53+00:00

How well does this play 2 player. I like the original card game but there was something that didn't quite work properly with 2 although it's so long ago I can't remember what it was

Thread: Re: Mumblilng about tiles distribution

bucklen_uk — 2006-03-24T09:42:24+00:00

Maybe you're right - distribution doesn't look even certainly

However I haven't noticed it having a major impact in game play once you know the buffalo are in short supply I just means that players put more effort into taking buffalo, so great heroes tend to appear at a hunt where buffalo are present (for example).

Same for the breakdown of horses/totems/tomahawks (tomahawks are really useful). Once you know the 'rarity' of the types you adjust your play accordingly.

But maybe you could try taking out horses & totems to take the count down to 7 each of those too, see what effect that has on play if you think you see too many of them in the game.

Thread: Re: Mumblilng about tiles distribution

RoSKoMaNTe — 2006-03-24T08:29:04+00:00

Thanks for your reply, Jeremy.

I was fooled by the rules in the same way you were.

The words "ogni coppia" may be traslated in "any one pair" (I think. I can read English very well, I am not as good as a writer, I'm sorry)

My reading of the rules brought me to the sentence that the scoring rules are well written, is the example which seems to be wrong. As stated by the file:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=15500 wrote:

1-2 Tepees/Buffaloes: It is usually necessary to collect these tiles in order to win the game since they normally provide the most victory points at the end of the game. Each pair of Tepees/Buffaloes scores 1 victory point. The number marked on these tiles shows the number of Tepees or Buffaloes that the tile represents.
Example: Alex holds one x 3 Tepee tile, one x 1 Tepee tile, one x 3 Buffaloes tile and one x 2 Buffaloes tile. He scores 4 victory points. If he had acquired one more Tepee tile, then he would have scored 5 victory points.

As you can see this example is quite different from the one in the printed rules and it make more sense to me.

Thus, if you had a 3 tepee and a 1 tepee, you get 0 VP.
If you had a 3 buffalo and a 2 buffalo, you get 0 VP.
If you had a 3 tepee and 1 buffalo (3 buffalo) you get 1 VP (3 VP).

That's the way I played and it seems to work.
But... there are few buffalos than tepee, and this looks strange.
And... in my opinion there are too many horses/totems/tomahawks tiles: for the first two hunts we were unable to draw a single buffalo tile!

From these thoughts my mumbling...

Ciao,
S.

Thread: Re: Mumblilng about tiles distribution

dipdragon — 2006-03-23T11:41:21+00:00

The scoring rules seem badly written - in all 3 languages - and the example given in the rules doesn't make sense to me.

However, my reading of the intention of the game is that you get 1 victory point for every 2 Tepees and every 2 Buffalo that you have. Thus, if you had a 3 Tepee and a 1 Tepee, you get 2 VP (3+1=4=2x2), if you had a 3 Buffalo and a 2 Buffalo, you get 2 VP (3+2=5=2x2+1). If you had another 1 Buffalo (or a 3 Buffalo) you would get an extra 1 VP (or 2 VP).

You can't add spare Buffalo to Tepees, or vice-versa; so 1 Tepee and 3 Buffalo would only score 1 VP - for 2 of the 3 Buffalo.

At least, its how I play it, as it seems to make the most sense - the problem seems to be how the phrase "Ogni coppia" has been translated. It can mean pair, or brace (as in brace of birds, two birds, or pair of birds) or just two.

With the numbers of the tiles showing the number of Tepees/Buffalo then there is an even number of both in the totals.

Of course, I could be wrong, but its probably worth a try to see if the game makes more sense to you.

The Horses, Totems and Tomahawks don't score points this way, so their odd numbers aren't an issue.

Thread: Mumblilng about tiles distribution

RoSKoMaNTe — 2006-03-12T18:31:52+00:00

Is there in the world any particular reason why the tiles distribution is as follows?:

- buffalo
6 x 1 pt
6 x 2 pt
4 x 3 pt

- teepee
6 x 1 pt
8 x 2 pt
4 x 3 pt

- horses
10

- totem
9

- tomahawk
7

Since you score points according to pairs, I think one 2 pt. teepee tile should have been a 2 pt. buffalo... [and maybe 1 tomahawk = 1 totem (or vice versa, 1 horse = 1 tomahawk)].

Comments anyone?

Ciao,
S.

Thread: Re: Evaluating the Hunter cards

Tycho — 2006-03-02T00:55:34+00:00

Thank you Alessandro, for both this answer and the one in my other thread. I'm pleased you got two tiles in the example

Thread: Re: Review

bucklen_uk — 2006-02-28T12:24:24+00:00

seppo21 wrote:
If you had the original rules, could you play the original game with this updated edition?

Not really, as the original game had buffalo cards (big hunt and small hunt) and this one has tiles - a bit different.

I suppose you could mix the two rules and use the tiles for the hunts but have the great warriors capturing hunters like the original, but you would have to explore how many hunts you could do, to ensure someone didn't run out of cards or something. Not something I plan to do as I have both versions.

Thread: Re: Evaluating the Hunter cards

magicovento — 2006-02-28T00:41:03+00:00

Tycho wrote:
The revised English rules say
B) The player with the Hunter cards that have the highest combined value in that hunting ground chooses second. That player takes two Booty Tiles. In the event of a draw none of the tied players takes any tile. In these circumstances, the player with the next highest points total on their Hunter cards in that hunting ground (if any) takes two Booty Tiles.
C) Finally, the player with the next highest valued Hunter cards in total in that hunting ground (if any) takes the remaining Booty Tile, if there is one. (This situation will only arise in those hunting grounds where there are four tiles.) In the event of a tie none of the tied players takes a tile. The player with the next highest total points on their Hunter cards, if any, will take the fourth Booty Tile
Is this a complicated way of saying tied players are eliminated from that Hunter evaluation? And can the second-placed scoring player take two tiles if available (as in the original rule translation)?

So, for example:
In a hunting ground, there are no Heros. Gunter has 10 Hunters, Richard has 10 Hunters, Alessandro has 6, Mariano has 3. Is the outcome that Alessandro chooses 2, then Mariano takes the remaining 2?

Yes, the tied players are eliminated from the hunter evaluation.
No, the second-placed scoring player takes one tile.
In the example, Mariano takes 1 tile. The other tile is out of the game.

Thread: Re: Totem/Horse cylinder

magicovento — 2006-02-28T00:33:20+00:00

Tycho wrote:
The revised English rules say the Totem and Horse cylinders change hands 'immediately another player gets the same amount'. Is that 'immediately' during the course of the evaluation? And is that 'same amount or greater'?

For example:
Gunter and Richard each have one Horse. Gunter has the cylinder.

1st ground: Richard wins one more Horse, now having a greater amount (takes cylinder)
2nd ground: Gunter wins one more Horse, now having parity (takes back cylinder)

Is the ability of both cylinders exercised before any of the grounds are evaluated? If they change hands during the round, presumably the new owner doesn't get use of the ability that round?

Yes, "immediately" means during the course of the evaluation.
It's the same amount. The example is correct.
The ability of both cylinders is exercised before any of the grounds are evaluated...

Thread: Evaluating the Hunter cards

Tycho — 2006-02-26T19:55:17+00:00

The revised English rules say
B) The player with the Hunter cards that have the highest combined value in that hunting ground chooses second. That player takes two Booty Tiles. In the event of a draw none of the tied players takes any tile. In these circumstances, the player with the next highest points total on their Hunter cards in that hunting ground (if any) takes two Booty Tiles.
C) Finally, the player with the next highest valued Hunter cards in total in that hunting ground (if any) takes the remaining Booty Tile, if there is one. (This situation will only arise in those hunting grounds where there are four tiles.) In the event of a tie none of the tied players takes a tile. The player with the next highest total points on their Hunter cards, if any, will take the fourth Booty Tile
Is this a complicated way of saying tied players are eliminated from that Hunter evaluation? And can the second-placed scoring player take two tiles if available (as in the original rule translation)?

So, for example:
In a hunting ground, there are no Heros. Gunter has 10 Hunters, Richard has 10 Hunters, Alessandro has 6, Mariano has 3. Is the outcome that Alessandro chooses 2, then Mariano takes the remaining 2?

Thread: Totem/Horse cylinder

Tycho — 2006-02-26T19:36:46+00:00

The revised English rules say the Totem and Horse cylinders change hands 'immediately another player gets the same amount'. Is that 'immediately' during the course of the evaluation? And is that 'same amount or greater'?

For example:
Gunter and Richard each have one Horse. Gunter has the cylinder.

1st ground: Richard wins one more Horse, now having a greater amount (takes cylinder)
2nd ground: Gunter wins one more Horse, now having parity (takes back cylinder)

Is the ability of both cylinders exercised before any of the grounds are evaluated? If they change hands during the round, presumably the new owner doesn't get use of the ability that round?

Thread: Playing by original rules?

seppo21 — 2006-02-24T20:26:31+00:00

If you had the original rules, could you play the original game with this updated edition?

Thread: Re: Tomahawks just acquired

JESSONSO — 2006-02-01T09:01:49+00:00

Thanks again, Richard!

In fact we like more this version (not to use tomahawks inemdiatly in scoring round).

The cleaned english rules are great (and so necessary). Good job.

Thread: Re: Tomahawks Tied?

Richard Breese — 2006-01-31T16:58:57+00:00

This point is now clarrified in the revised and approved (WYG) English rules posted to the BGG today.

Thread: Re: Tomahawks just acquired

Richard Breese — 2006-01-31T16:56:50+00:00

JESSONSO wrote:
Answer: Yes.

(Answer from Richard Breese, who demonstrated Big Manitou at Essen and Lucca for What's Your Game?)

It is correct that I answered Yes. However after discussing this point further with the publisher, What's Your Game? who in turn discussed this point with the designer Günter Burkhardt, there is a change to the answer - which is now No!

There is now a revised and approved set of English rules that has been posted on the Geek which removes the ambiguities of the published English version.

Image

Castef — 2005-12-21T22:53:14+00:00

The full contents of the box

Thread: Re: Tomahawks Tied?

JESSONSO — 2005-12-16T15:34:24+00:00

Answer: Both players get the VP.

(Answer from Richard Breese, who demonstrated Big Manitou at Essen and Lucca for WhatYourGame)

Thread: Re: Tomahawks just acquired

JESSONSO — 2005-12-16T15:32:54+00:00

Answer: Yes.

(Answer from Richard Breese, who demonstrated Big Manitou at Essen and Lucca for WhatYourGame)

Thread: Tomahawks just acquired

JESSONSO — 2005-12-15T18:34:10+00:00

Can you use the just acquired Tomahawks in the same scoring round?

For example:
You gain a Tomahawk tile in the first scored Field.
You use this Tomahawk in the scoring of the second Field.

Rules talks about scoring the three Fields one to one...

Not very good rules like they are printed in this game.

Thanks!

Thread: Tomahawks Tied?

JESSONSO — 2005-12-15T18:13:40+00:00

At the game end, mayority of Tomahawks gives +1 victory point.
What happened if there is a tie?

(We supposed: no mayority, no point - but with the rules included in the game we are not sure of anything...)

Thanks!

Image

buergerberatung — 2005-11-10T01:19:45+00:00

Thread: Re: Improved?

mrbass — 2005-10-31T21:08:00+00:00

Rules are a joke...they spell strentgh wrong throughtout. What's your game http://www.whatsyourgame.it/ should just hire bucklen_uk to write the rules in English for them http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/83357

Thread: Re: Improved?

kenrick822 — 2005-10-28T18:29:48+00:00

I spoke to the publishers at Essen about the rule book - and they promised a new version asap on this site - so where is it ?

A nice production let down by one of the worse rules books ever given that it is so short !

Game play is ok - compared to the original - but flawed if you try and follow the new rules

Thread: Review

bucklen_uk — 2005-10-18T09:16:30+00:00

Big Manitou is a re-release of Manitou but with some significant changes.

Just like Manitou you're a tribe of American Indians going through a series of hunts, collecting victory points.

There is an identical set of cards for each tribe, hunters (numbered 1-10) and great warriors (2 chiefs, 2 squaws, 1 rain-maker, 1 medicine man and 1 scout), along with a number of counters a bag to put them in and 2 wooden markers.

First the hunting ground is layed out by pulling out the required number of counters (varies with player number) to make 3 hunts. Then each player selects from their cards 7,8 or 9 cards to play with for this round. 7 cards will be played, one player (going first) has 9 the last player 7, the rest 8.

These cards are each shuffled and players draw 3 cards from their deck.

You play cards, one a turn until each player has played 7. You choose which hunt to play each card. Once all the card play is finished you distribute the counters.

First if there is a great warrior at the hunt their player picks a counter, then the player with the most points in hunters picks 2, then the player in 2nd place takes the remainder (if any).

Hunter cards you just play into the hunt - but great warriors have a 'trial of strength' if you play a great warrior and one is already present at the hunt. There is a hierarchy, each of these beats at least one of the others and loses to at least one of the others, for example the chief is beaten by the squaw and defeats all the others.

Then all the played cards are returned to their owners and discarded and a 2nd round starts, with the first player (selecting 9) rotating - this time players have to use their unplayed/unselected cards from the previous round. Then a third round is played, this time using all the card again, and so on. The number of rounds depends on the number of players

The counters you win at the hunts give you the victory points. There are 5 types:

Buffalo - numbered 1,2 or 3 - you have to combine with tent counters to get victory points

Tents - also numbered 1,2,3. If you had a 3 buffalo and a 2 tent then you'd score 2 victory points (and the extra point of buffalo is wasted).

Tomahawk - gives +1 strength to each hunter and the player with the most at the game end gets 1 victory point

Pony - player who first gets one takes the white wooden marker, when another player has more pony counters they take it. If you have the pony marker then at the end of the round you can move 1 hunter card from one hunt to another before resolving the hunts, which can be very useful.

Totem Pole - similar to the pony but you take the brown marker. If you hold the totem marker then you can play one extra card at the end of the round (unless you only had 7 cards) again very useful.

Finally there is the leather thief - each turn the player who played the highest value of hunter cards gets hit by a leather thief and has to discard one buffalo or tent counter if they have one, otherwise one other marker.

The english rule book isn't great - there are errors and omissions.

Game play is similar to the original, but the game is different enough to consider owning both. I'm not sure which I prefer.

In the original you used great warriors to capture your opponents' hunters, in this version you don't, so that element is gone but it's replaced with the various counter types. The fact the counters are drawn from a bag gives the game more variety than the orignal - you can't be sure that more totems will appear later in the game, or that in this game tents will be scarce etc. You still have the mechanic of picking your hand - but this time you know you'll have to play the remaining cards next round rather than (hopefully) getting the played cards back again immediately.

On balance, the variety in the counters, the fact it's playable with 2-5 (and no balance problem with 4 unlike the original) I think Big Manitou just pips the original.

Thread: Re: Improved?

bucklen_uk — 2005-10-18T08:43:22+00:00

rdsmith wrote:
I was elated to see that my all time favorite card game was going to be reprinted. However, I am somewhat disappointed in the new artwork, and wonder what the newly introduced counters are going to be used for. I guess this is what makes it "Big". The original was perfect the way it was, and I hope this new edition of Manitou isn't a canoe wreck.
Hmm, maybe big relates to the box? Or maybe the price? Or maybe the big wooden cylinders included in the game?

New edition isn't exactly improved in my opinion. It's a variant of the original - they've fixed the 4 player problem of the original and you can now play it with 2-5 which is nice, the counters give a bit of variation and more to consider than just 'get buffalo' but there are other changes that I'm not so sure about. Major one is you don't get to capture hunters anymore, instead the great warriors get to pick one of the counters first. This alters the way the game develops.

Which do I like more? Tough choice - I think the original, but with a few more plays of this version I might change my mind.

Oh and the english rulebook is awful - a significant number of errors

Thread: Improved?

rdsmith — 2005-09-02T00:46:08+00:00

I was elated to see that my all time favorite card game was going to be reprinted. However, I am somewhat disappointed in the new artwork, and wonder what the newly introduced counters are going to be used for. I guess this is what makes it "Big". The original was perfect the way it was, and I hope this new edition of Manitou isn't a canoe wreck.