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.

[cjsiam]

I guess we have to remember that this is a 15min time segment.....
That an infantry in combat movement moves 3 hexes in 15min......so that "movement" into the entrenchment hex could be the 1st, 2nd or 3rd of the 3 movement points expended over that 15 min.

It doesn't take a lot of time to jump into an entrenchment...

Picture the scenario where an enemy unit is adjacent to the entrenchment that the unit is about to enter....he's going to be firing at the unit as they try to get in,
but they will be in the entrenchment pretty quickly as well.....

moving into a woods they take advantage of the terrain immediately (and looking at maps -- which is always suspect---that might be the 1/3rd of the hex on the other side, but still they get the modifier.....

So providing the modifier for the 15min period makes some sense to me...and seems consistent with how the rules work....I would hate to have to modify the mechanic
based on which of the 3 movement points....or part of movement it happened within....

We have to recall this is an aggregation of activity over 15min....at 200 yards(or more)
....clearly they are vulnerable for a short period as they move into the entrenchment
but I'd think that lasts no longer then it does as they move into a partial woods hex......so....I'd think the entrenchment applies.....at best--the firing unit gets
to fire with the -1 opportunity fire---but I think that might also be questioned....but....on that I'd go either way....

The RAW seem to say they get the entrenchment....as it's the terrain hex they are in, and they are considered in it on entering.....

[plloyd1010]

To be clear, it is these guys:


Holding off these guys (in this order):


While it doesn't take long to jump into an entrenchment, it takes time to move through entrenchments and deploy in entrenchments. RaW does say they automatically get the entrenchment benefit, it says they have to choose it. The question is, when can/is that choice made, considering the word occupy is part of the equation?

BtW: We are play pretty RaW. The only house rule is that flanking fire is not applied against units in reg wood, towns, blockhouses or forts.

[J6A]

What cjsiam says is pretty much how I look at things. And, while I agree it takes time to move through and deploy, I think that's reflected in not being able to shoot until 15 minutes later.

To me, the under the counter/over the counter is "who got there first?" Whichever side starts with the entrenchment is entrenched or whichever side moves into an empty entrenchment occupies it, the other side has to take it from them.

[saracv3]

But one thing to take into account is that we’re not talking about just one guy jumping into a trench. I am picturing a platoon of guys moving into the trench, what with a semblance of organization and various types of equipment inside and outside Of the trench.

What if a bunch of guys jump on top of an artillery position or AFVs or APCs? Or what if an AFV, APC or dragged (A bit daunting in real combat) artillery unit.

I like Peter’s artwork for the1898 counters. Thinking of 2 rated MPs for yesteryear’s soldier: Of coarse people in 1898 moved slower because they were shorter (like TR) and out of shape (except TR, who probably carried an inhaler) unlike the svelte wargamer of today.

[plloyd1010]

TR is in this scenario. He is an 8-0-0, this time around. he commands those USVC pieces. My opponent put them in the back because of their relatively low morale.

[saracv3]

A most interesting situation has emerged with my entrenment attacks in AOI #4.This scenario calls for the Allies (SA/British) to capture six Italian entrenchments; two on each board. The opposing forces appear very assymetrical. The Allies have 82 counters (leaders included), while the Italians have 27 counters (leaders and entrenchments included.) Bit the Allies are hampered by special rules dividing their forces. They also don’t get the major balance of their force until turn 12.
T
The South Africans started by attacking an entrenchment on turn 4 using 2 infantry platoons and a leader. (9 attack points) against 16 Italian pts. However, I read the stack wrong and thought the Italians had 3 infantry platoons comprising the stack. In fact, there was a HMG unit instead of a infantry platoon. I rolled a 12 for First Fire. Result = X.

Question: Should I have rolled on the Direct Fire table instead of the Assault table?

I’ll tell the rest of the story after I get some response here.

[plloyd1010]

This is a tactical question, not a rules one. In answer to the question, you were not ready to force the position by either means.

1st assumption: The South Africans have gotten adjacent to the Italians already. (elsewise they will get scrabbed OP fire.)
2nd assumption: There is no Italian leader. (Otherwise you would have taken 2 hits on a "12".)
3rd assumption: The Italians are good order. (Because you didn't say any of them were not.)
Correction: The Italians only have 14 points (4+4+6)

In an assault, the Italians are going to have 1st shot on the 13 column (83% result/33% kill). The South Africans (assuming no kill and survive result) attack on the 5 column (9+1-2) which has a 56% result and 6% kill possibilities (and that is rounded up).
In a shootout (under the assumptions listed) the Italians fire on the Italians fire on the 22 column (100% result/25% kill). The South Africans fire on the 11 (7+1+2-2) column (56% result/3% kill).

Unless you have back-up, I don't think either would have been a good idea.

[saracv3]

I think it is a relevant and straightforward question. I used Direct Fire (First Fire) on the SA troops when they came ‘over the top.’ In contradistinction to the previously ineffectual adjacent DF which fell on the 16 column. That snot produced no result. So the South Africans felt fairly confident about their Assault. But the Italians had a big surprise for the SA platoons. Even I was surprised.

The Italians were in good order, had a leader, and they had 14 points. If I was using the Assault table I might have read it correctly. But both charts produce the same result. The Direct Fire 22 column results in 2X on a 12 The Assault Fire 24 column also results in 2X. This result was in fact the outcome when the Italians counterattacked using the Assault table.

At that point the SA troops had lost 2X; one step for each infantry unit and a DR on the 8-0-1 leader and DM on both infantry. Then, in the next phase, the Italians counterattacked and wiped out all SA units. The leader died because he rolled a 4 (-2). (The now 2–3 SA infantry had lost two steps because they were both DM. This would have resulted in the +2 shift on the Assault table but not the Direct Fire table. Having a leader would not have resulted in a shift w/ DF. But using the 11 column on Direct Fire still is a X. The subsequent counterattack on the Assault table still resulted in a +2 shift on the 16 column base. Both SA infantry units were DM and thus +1 added.

[joe_oppenheimer]

I used Direct Fire (First Fire) on the SA troops when they came ‘over the top.’ In contradistinction to the previously ineffectual adjacent DF which fell on the 16 column.

You don't get to opportunity fire on units as they move into an assault hex. "First Fire" is always assault fire.