Again, where is this stated in the current rulebook? All the rulings that have been posted in this thread have not dealt explicitly with adjacency. They have dealt with LOF, Movement, and Walls. Not with adjacency and continuous blocking terrain at a diagonal. It does not settle the question.

It is true that in previous rulebooks two diagonal squares of blocking terrain have cut off adjacency, but it has been removed from the last two rulebooks. (LOSH & Danger Room)

Is this really that hard, if its continuous blocking because they're on either side of two blocking terrain features, and the blocking pieces are diagonally touching, then your on opposites sides of a wall, you cant do anything to each other. The thing you may be messing up is when two characters are touching diagonally and two other characters are touching diagonally, 2 characters diagonally are blocking for line of site and range attacks, but they ARE NOT blocking for close combat and break away.

It's not in the current rulebook, but it certainly hasn't changed, as the ruling on Copsicles bears out:

Until that ruling is changed, that settles this extreme line of rules-lawyer questioning.

Blocking terrain and walls are different. Walls do have the effects of blocking terrain but blocking terrain doesn't necessarily have the effects of walls. So the rule on walls is not applicable to blocking terrain in this circumstance.

I know there is a clear difference between LOF and adjacency when it comes to diagonals. I am not messing that up. That isn't the issue here. The issue is specifically with two diagonally adjacent squares of blocking terrain. There is no place in the current rulebook that specifically states it stops adjacency. Please read previous posts in this thread.

I see that it hasn't changed, but my issue is with the fact that it isn't in the current rulebook and it should be.

I am sorry you think that this is a case of rule-lawyering. That was hardly my intention. I am simply asking for people to take awareness to this oversight in the rules so it doesn't cause problems for people, like similar situations have caused me.

TheMummyBoy, I gotta admit that at first I thought you were a rule-lawyer trying to exploit something, but thanks to your later clarifications, I understand what you're saying now.

However, I do think, like others in this thread, that the "continuous blocking terrain" part and the Copcicles ruling are enough to state that two characters on opposite sides of diagonally adjacent blocking terrain features are not adjacent.

Now, I don't put the blame on you, but on WK. If they could give us clear rules, we wouldn't have to search for explanations or rulings scattered everywhere in the rulebook, the FAQ, Erratas & Clarifications and Rules forum (or what's even worse: older rulebooks!), and we wouldn't have lengthy debates on such a simple matter.

Just my 2 (Euro) cents.

Thanks for your understanding.

I do see how you, and many others in this thread, can think that continuous blocking terrain and the Copsicle ruling are enough to make a judgment on this issue, I think it is enough too, however that isn't what I'm looking for. It isn't enough to think or believe it should work that way. It needs to be clearly outlined. Just because you think or believe that 3+4=5 doesn't make it so. What is needed is clear proof, in the form of a rule from an official document that states what happens when this situation arises. Not everybody will think the same way without that clear proof.