Chinese fighter and burma

[barnee]

@panther said in Chinese fighter and burma:

“However, Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. Although they are not Chinese
territories, Chinese forces can move into them.”

Hi Panther
yea i just reread rulebook and didn’t see anything saying they couldn’t. Didn’t answer/quote, as triplea does it wrong. That is known about I assume ?

Edit
I assume he meant before UK and JPN are at war

[Panther]

@barnee said in Chinese fighter and burma:

@panther said in Chinese fighter and burma:

“However, Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. Although they are not Chinese
territories, Chinese forces can move into them.”

Hi Panther
yea i just reread rulebook and didn’t see anything saying they couldn’t. Didn’t answer/quote, as triplea does it wrong. That is known about I assume ?

TripleA correctly allows it, as I just tested. Please test it again.

However, personally I would never use TripleA for rules confirmation purposes in this forum category. As you can’t always trust TripleA when it comes to rules questions.

Edit
I assume he meant before UK and JPN are at war

Maybe, as some people confuse “neutrality” with “not being at war”.
For example UK is at war from the beginning of the game, just not with Japan at that moment. But this is totally unrelated to “neutrality”.

Here again TripleA most of the time is the culprit as it incorrectly uses the term “Neutrality” for a status that simply is “not at war”.

This is why this forum category is about the boardgame - and not about TripleA’s interpretations of games/rules. :laughing:

[barnee]

@panther said in Chinese fighter and burma:

personally I would never use TripleA for rules confirmation purposes

I don’t

[Panther]

@barnee said in Chinese fighter and burma:

@panther said in Chinese fighter and burma:

personally I would never use TripleA for rules confirmation purposes

I don’t

I know. I did not mean to address you in person. It was meant as general statement, that’s why I set an empty line after what addressed you directly.

[barnee]

@panther all good. I tested again and triplea works correctly. I had tested on a mod and not the Global 40 game itself. My bad.

@Polishpowerhouse so the answer is yes :)

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@panther

Since the UK is already at war at the start of the game, compared to the US at the start (assume no Axis attacks), while the US cannot move into any other power’s territories (like Canada), the UK and ANZAC, despite not being at war with Japan, can freely move into each other’s territories (like British infantry moving into French Indochina).

[Panther]

@superbattleshipyamato said in Chinese fighter and burma:

@panther

Since the UK is already at war at the start of the game, compared to the US at the start (assume no Axis attacks), while the US cannot move into any other power’s territories (like Canada), the UK and ANZAC, despite not being at war with Japan, can freely move into each other’s territories (like British infantry moving into French Indochina).

But this is totally unrelated. US restrictions are based on its neutral status/political situation.
And of course allied nations may move into each others (friendly) territories, what is based on simple and standard movement rules, unless other specific rules apply.
This has nothing to do with being at war with Japan or not.

Or why are you telling me this?

@superbattleshipyamato said in Chinese fighter and burma:

That being said, considering Britain’s looser neutrality rules,

“Britain’s looser neutrality rules” simply don’t exist.

See my first answer in this thread:
What I am saying there - based on the rulebook - is:

China is allied with UK, so UK’s territories are friendly to China. Now China is under movement restrictions (“They [Chinese Units] can be moved only into territories that have a Nationalist Chinese emblem.”). But there is an exception: China may move into Burma and Kwangtung.

This is all independent from questions about “neutrality” and whoever “being at war with Japan”.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@panther

Sorry for the confusion. The US was just a comparison. I was noting how even on the Pacific side when the UK is not at war with Japan it doesn’t have to act like a neutral power (compared to the Soviets who have separate neutrality rules for both sides of the board).

By “looser neutrality rules” in the second quote I merely meant that while the UK is not at war with Japan, it isn’t a neutral power.

[Polishpowerhouse]

@panther thank you. That makes perfect sense.

[barnee]

@Panther

Just to make sure I have it right. China can land it’s Ftr in Burma and JPN can’t attack it unless they are at War with UK.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@barnee

Correct.

[Panther]

@barnee said in Chinese fighter and burma:

@Panther

Just to make sure I have it right. China can land it’s Ftr in Burma and JPN can’t attack it unless they are at War with UK.

Correct. China’s fighter can land in (friendly) Burma due to the “China Rules”, and Japan can’t attack Burma, then, due to the “Powers Not at War with One Another” - rules, as long as Japan is not at war with UK.