Significance of "intervening models?"

[Ordrek]

How are "intervening models" relevant to game play? Primal p.43 defines what an intervening model, but doesn't explain why it is important. The only reference to it is under the four requirements for Line of Sight on the same page, but it seems unnecessary to that section.

"3. The line must not pass over the base of an intervening model that has a base size equal to or larger than Model B."

It seems like "an intervening model" could simply be replaced with "any model" and still maintain the exact same effect. Why the definition? Is it significant to anything else? I can see it's significance for Slam attacks, but is there something else I'm missing?

I thought I read a line in the rules about intervening models sometimes having significance to shooting, but I didn't note the page of that reference and never ran across anything that suggests an intervening model is at all significant to shooting unless EVERY line from Model A to Model B crossing the base of the intervening model... in other words the target is completely behind the intervening model.

[PG_Alviaran]

Because it defines a game term, which allows other abilities to interact with it. Such as the spell Awareness, which lets a model ignore intervening models. Or Arcing Fire, which allows you to ignore intervening models except those close to the target.

[Ordrek]

Thank you Alviaran. I do get the point of defining a term for its use elsewhere, but I'm not sure why it matters in the instances you cite. What would happen if Arcing Fire did not ignore intervening models? It seems like as long as you can draw ANY line to a target, you can shoot it. Is this wrong? The only time an intervening model seems like it would matter is if ALL lines to the target are blocked by intervening models.... but in that case it seems redundant to define an intervening model because the very definition of LOS requires an unbroken straight line that doesn't pass over an equal or larger base.

I'm sorry if I'm being dense or hyper-literal, I just want to understand why the definition is important. A specific example of how it plays into the game would be helpful.

[PG_Alviaran]

In those cases, it means you cannot block LOS with models.

There are numerous abilities that can call out intervening models for whatever effects. This lets them denote what those models are.

[Leo_the_Rat]

An example that I can think of is arcing fire. If you have 2 large models in btb and a 3rd small based model 3" behind them then you couldn't draw LoS due to the intervening models. Arcing fire allows you to ignore those intervening models and still fire at the small model in the rear.

[Crate123]

You are correct that they could just as well have written "models that are not within 1" does not block LOS to this attack". Im not sure there are any instances where the wording actually matters that they are Intervening models and not just "models blocking LOS". Still, there might be some that I dont remember or there might be effects down the line where the wording will be important.

Is this what you mean OP ?

[vaildin]

it may be a holdover from MKI, when intervening models could provide screening.

[rydiafan]

Some abilities, like Stealth, can cause models to not count as intervening models.

[Ordrek]

You are correct that they could just as well have written "models that are not within 1" does not block LOS to this attack". Im not sure there are any instances where the wording actually matters that they are Intervening models and not just "models blocking LOS". Still, there might be some that I dont remember or there might be effects down the line where the wording will be important.

Is this what you mean OP ?

Crate123 is onto my meaning here: That defining "intervening model" seems entirely superfluous. The rules could achieve the same effect without defining this term, which has no apparent direct application.

Correct me if I'm wrong about this: In an otherwise open field, you can shoot a model if you can draw any straight line between any part of your model's base to any part of the target model's base that doesn't cross the base(s) of equal or larger based models. Correct?

If the above is true, "intervening model" seem completely superfluous.

[Lanz]

It's just a way to reference models based on their position on the table. By calling them 'intervening models', rules can use the term 'intervening model' to designate specific models without having to define what an intervening model would be for every rule that uses it.

So it turns what would probably be a sentence or two of explanation into two words and makes the rules more concise. A lot of rules work that way, like the icons that are now used. Back in Mk1, stuff like Fire was written out in full on every model that had the rule. Now it's just a little picture.

[rydiafan]

Crate123 is onto my meaning here: That defining "intervening model" seems entirely superfluous. The rules could achieve the same effect without defining this term, which has no apparent direct application.

Correct me if I'm wrong about this: In an otherwise open field, you can shoot a model if you can draw any straight line between any part of your model's base to any part of the target model's base that doesn't cross the base(s) of equal or larger based models. Correct?

If the above is true, "intervening model" seem completely superfluous.

Except, as I already stated, there are ways for a model to be on the table and yet not qualify as an intervening model.

[solkan]

See the last sentence of Stealth:

This model is not an intervening model (p. 43) when determining line of sight from a model greater than 5" away.

That is all the reason why the rules need to define what an intervening model is.

[Crate123]

See the last sentence of Stealth:


That is all the reason why the rules need to define what an intervening model is.

Or, the text could have said "A model with Stealth, does not block LOS from a model greater than 5" away"
Giving it a name makes it easy to look up in the rule books.

[poeticruse]

The text could have said a lot of things. But it says what it does for clarity and simple reference. This is not the "what could the rules have hypothetically said instead" forum.