Here's the situation:

D N
X P

D is my opponent's Deathstroke. The D is underlined because there is a wall between D and X.
N is my opponent's Nightcrawler.
X is an empty square.
P is my perplexed Paramedic.

The only wall nearby is the wall between D and X.

Can my perplexed Paramedic attack Deathstroke?

My view: Yes, of course. To attack in close combat, the attacker must be adjacent to the defender. The paramedic is in a square which is adjacent to Deathstroke. There is no wall between the paramedic and Deathstroke, nor are they on different elevation, nor do we have the situation where one character is soaring but the other is not. These are the only conditions which stop characters in adjacent squares from being adjacent. Since none of those conditions apply, the two characters are clearly adjacent, so therefore by the rulebook, a close combat attack may be made by the paramedic against Deathstroke.

My opponent's view (and the view of a couple of the other players... and the "judge"... and another judge who was called just to deal with this situation... and even the friggin' dice when we rolled off when we couldn't settle this argument):

This attack can't be made. There's, y'know, stuff in the way.
Shooting through the diagonal can't be done for a ranged attack if there were two characters (one at X and one at N), and you couldn't make a ranged attack if there were two walls blocking the way. So, no ranged attack can be made... and the fact that close combat attacks work differently makes no difference.

Can anyone point me to an official ruling one way or another? It's hard to debate when my position is "There's no rule against what I'm doing," since my opponent counters with "Well, find the rule that shows that there's no rule against what you're doing."

Or maybe I'm wrong?

I'm with you. Close combat attack should be ok. Only adjacency is required.

>>Shooting through the diagonal can't be done for a ranged attack if there were two characters (one at X and one at N), and you couldn't make a ranged attack if there were two walls blocking the way.

I think LOS is also blocked in your diagram because the line crosses on the diagonal between 2 blocking squares (the wall on one side and the figure on the other).

Thanks.

Yeah, I meant to mention that clearly line of sight was blocked (I was going to say this at the end of my rant about shooting through two characters and shooting through two walls), but that that shouldn't matter for close combat.

Anybody else want to pipe in with an opinion? Especially a judge? I'd like to be able to print out this thread and show it to everyone at my venue, so a plethora of opinions would be nice.

That arrangement blocks LoF between D and P... but you do not need LoF to make a close combat attack. Your Paramedic can punch him all day long, or at least until Nightcrawler gets into the fray and HSS's your Paramedic into tomorrow.

You were correct. The Paramedic can make a close combat attack on an adjacent figure.

Thanks.

Anybody else want to chime in? Even if you just say "I agree" or "I disagree".

I agree

I agree

I disagree, with Funky Jett. That setup in no way blocks line of fire.

D N
X P

Line of fire from D to P passes between blocking terrain and a character. Passing next to either does not block LOF. So LOF is clear.

I agree to disagree that there is no LoF between D and P.

Errr

I believe there is LoF between D and P since X is an unoccupied square.

Only adjacency is required for a close combat action or attack.

I also agree with clixer11 about LOF too since walls do not extend past the corner of the square.

I believe you can find both of these rules in the rulebook or FAQ.