When does a unit go "under" an entrenchment?

[plloyd1010]

I would give the entrenchment modifier. You me, the hex terrain is entrenchment, no matter what is printed on the map. So, you get the benefit as soon as you enter. As was pointed out above, you get woods terrain right away, so why not entrenchment.

That actually doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the rules.

I'm curious why you think that. And while I didn't state this in my initial post, I would apply the moving modifier, I'd just net it with the entrenchment.

The rule begins thus:

16.3 Entrenchment markers give units and leaders underneath them column modifiers against all types of fire (see fire tables), and give defending units underneath them first fire in assault combat (12.33).

To make the rest of the narrative shorter, it goes on to explain that units underneath the entrenchment marker are in the entrenchment (occupying), and those above are not (receive no benefit from the entrenchment).

Now contextually, in most other references in PG & IA, usually refers to the non-active side, or at the very least, after movement. I am in the fight for San Juan Hill. That give me 20 entrenchments and 11 units (one of which is a weapon). So you can see where this issue came up (either because of the blue-boys coming at me or me shifting positions).

Getting back to our statements, since units need to be above or underneath an entrenchment counter, treating the entrenchment like woods, town or whatever, doesn't make sense. Since the word "occupy(ing)" is used so often in the the entrenchment section, and that in nearly every other context occupy or occupying refers for stationary or non-active unit, the question of when a unit occupies an entrenchment came up.

I sort of like Craig's suggestion of +1 mp to occupy an entrenchment during movement. The problem I have with it, is that with infantry units that move at 2 and have a range of 2, it is almost an auto-occupy rule.