When does a unit go "under" an entrenchment?

[plloyd1010]

Actually it is an Infantry Attacks question, but the rule is the same in PG. If the unit is placed under the entrenchment after movement, then it couldn't claim the entrenchment modifier if op fired upon. If placed under during moment, it could claim the modifier.

We can see arguments for both sides.

[Michael Murphy]

Interesting question. One I don't believe that I have encountered before.

Of course, my memory is toast these days.

Peace. Michael

[JayTownsend]

I would assume, that if a unit is fired on by Opportunity Fire, the unit is moving, in the open before entering the entrenchment. So no cover or entrenchment benefit until after the Opportunity Fire is complete.

[Michael Murphy]

Just to play devil's advocate here, RAW would seem to imply combining the two modifiers. My reasoning is that op fire would apply as Jay noted; simultaneously, the unit is also in the entrenchment for a final modifier of minus one (-1), barring any other modifiers.

Although I just claimed not to remember such a question just above, I now suspect that I simply combined the modifiers and never gave the issue a second thought.

Peace. Michael

[cjsiam]

What happens when you are opportunity fired upon when you enter woods? I'd think same...

[plloyd1010]

Just to play devil's advocate here, RAW would seem to imply combining the two modifiers. My reasoning is that op fire would apply as Jay noted; simultaneously, the unit is also in the entrenchment for a final modifier of minus one (-1), barring any other modifiers.

My(our) contention is that there is no RaW here. If there was we would have said, "Yep, that's it" or "No, we'll try something more reasonable". The word "occupy", in the rules, is used against stationary units, almost exclusively for the non-active player. Woods, town and other terrain modifiers are about being "in the hex" or fire against target "in the hex", as opposed to occupying. Occupying with caves, requires a specific declaration (as do entrenchments), and no one assumes some one moving into or through a cave hex in the cave. We have agreed that units may automatically occupy an entrenchment at the end of a move. Moving through the trenches is another matter.

Incidentally, the question has only come up once, thus far. It will come up more, as I am the Spanish defending San Juan Hill. We played it combining modifiers (net +1). We hope to have a firmer understanding by the next session. I also hope to have a appropriate derisive for those guys in the blue shirts that are surrounding my position.

[J6A]

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.

[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.

[saracv3]

How about adding 1 movement point to enter an entrenchment otherwise the unit is placed on top of it. I just happen to be starting a scenario (El Wak Job, AOI #4) where capturing entrenchments is key for winning the game.

[J6A]

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.

I'll look at the rules again, cand this is how I've played it.