Two Larry made pacific setup-changes?

@Battling:

will the latest setup changes be on the FAQs

As Krieghund stated, these are tentative at this point and it is incumbant on us to playtest them to verify whether they correct the broken nature of the J1 attack and J3IC.  As to your specific question, Larry has addressed this several times on that thread and I would advise you to read through some of the progress that is being made to correct the balance of the game.

But, to reiterate what my understanding is:  After a solution to the balance has been found and LH is satisfied, he will issue his corrections to the community, which we can choose to take as gospel.  These may or may not be Official Errata (that may require publisher endorsement), or a Larry Harris Endorsed Rule change (which isn’t as official, but is approved by LH and will probably be adopted for tournaments).  He will likely also send the setup corrections, etc, to the publisher to be included/corrected in a future release printing, should one occur, but it isn’t LH’s call that any of these revisions are actually adopted by the publisher.

Thanks

That all seems so complicated:

I’ve got a much more simple answer:

Just put back the 18 Soviet infantry to the north and everything will be resolved.

Japan will not ignore that substantial force if she has to watch her back!

@Shakespeare:

That all seems so complicated:

I like this guy!!!!!

@Shakespeare:

Just put back the 18 Soviet infantry to the north and everything will be resolved.

Japan will not ignore that substantial force if she has to watch her back!

Larry already discarded that option and I have tried it. It completely changes the dynamic of the game. Russia moved into Korea on the first turn and Japan gets stuck having to deal with the 18 inf instead of striking south into the DEI.

Thread should be here.  Much more traffic.  I go weeks without going to the Harris site.  I think the volume back me up here.

@jeffdestroyer:

Thread should be here.  Much more traffic.  I go weeks without going to the Harris site.  I think the volume back me up here.

There’s no arguing that this site gets far more traffic than Larry’s.  However, Larry and I can’t reasonably be expected to monitor this site plus 10 others that have also reposted this information while at the same time maintaining any sort of meaningful discussion.  Obviously, you can post anything you like here, but if you want your feedback to actually be heard, I suggest you post it at his site.  As to not visiting there frequently, if you care enough to participate in this process, you’ll go more often.

@Krieghund:

@jeffdestroyer:

Thread should be here.  Much more traffic.  I go weeks without going to the Harris site.  I think the volume back me up here.

There’s no arguing that this site gets far more traffic than Larry’s.  However, Larry and I can’t reasonably be expected to monitor this site plus 10 others that have also reposted this information while at the same time maintaining any sort of meaningful discussion.  Obviously, you can post anything you like here, but if you want your feedback to actually be heard, I suggest you post it at his site.  As to not visiting there frequently, if you care enough to participate in this process, you’ll go more often.

No offence, but it seems to me we are being heard since you visit this site quite often.

While it’s true that you will occassionally be heard, it will certainly not be an interactive process.  Unless, of course, someone from here decides to take it upon themselves to transpose discussions back and forth between the two sites.  My point is that anything posted here may or may not actually make it back to Larry, whereas if it’s posted there he’ll definitely see it and comment on it.

I’m really not sure what all this resistance is about.  If anyone really wants to participate in this process (or even just watch), what’s the big deal about going over to Larry’s site and paying attention to one thread?