Line of sight in melee combat

[AdamJ]

In the first edition of AoS when picking targets the rules stated you needed line of sight for both missile and melee weapons. 

In AoS 2.0 line of sight is only mentioned when choosing missile targets. Is line of sight not needed for melee weapons?

If so one issue I have with this is when models are either side of terrain but in range. For example if my model is one side of an Ophidian archway and an enemy model is the other side but there is a distance of 1” (if measured from base to base through the terrain piece). Would it be legal to attack with a melee weapon with a 1” range despite there being no line of sight. Logically and thematically it doesn’t make sense to attack through walls but if an opponent tried this against me I wouldn’t be able to quote a rule preventing this.

[heywoah_twitch]

While conceptually it doesn't make much sense to be able to attack someone through a brick wall (though I'd make an argument for stuff like wardroth beetle or stonehorns ), I haven't found any language that prohibits this, unless it's mentioned on a particular piece of terrain's warscroll.

[Overread]

This is either an oversight (possibly caused by the fact that line of sight for close combat is one of those things most players expect and thus might have slipped through testing or re-writes); or the info is hiding in a very odd place. I can't imagine that GW expects close combat units to hit each other through brick walls. 

[BaldoBeardo]

1 hour ago, Overread said:

This is either an oversight (possibly caused by the fact that line of sight for close combat is one of those things most players expect and thus might have slipped through testing or re-writes); or the info is hiding in a very odd place. I can't imagine that GW expects close combat units to hit each other through brick walls. 

Given that it specifically mentions LoS for ranged attacks, I don't think it's an oversight.

[Overread]

2 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Given that it specifically mentions LoS for ranged attacks, I don't think it's an oversight.

Are you therefore arguing that GW fully intends players to be able to perform close combat attacks straight through solid walls of steel, concrete, rock, magical rune stone and anything else? 

 

I think it far more likely that they simply overlooked it when writing; esp if their reminder setups didn't feature any buildings or terrain when testing out the base rules. It could also be that its such a normal thing that they didn't even think of testing, esp since most time people get into close combat its after a charge or isn't around a corner and where many models are already touching (or nearly touching) bases

[BaldoBeardo]

9 hours ago, Overread said:

Are you therefore arguing that GW fully intends players to be able to perform close combat attacks straight through solid walls of steel, concrete, rock, magical rune stone and anything else?

I'm not arguing, but on current evidence - e.g. no errata issued - yes.

[Overread]

Ah yes fully agreed, though I'd wager most clubs would expect line of sight enough that they'd not actually check the rules for this one. Though I do hope GW fixes this

[EMMachine]

Hm, I first thought the Obsticle Rule would have a point.

Perhaps I did Misread this point (Page 10 Corerules) here:

Quote

Some terrain features are obstacles
that block attacks to targets that lie
beyond them

 

[Overread]

It sort of does and doesn't because Obsticle  are defined as such by their associated warscroll. So in theory only official GW terrain with a formal warscroll counts. It should be noted that such obsticles also obstruct ranged attacks against a target within 1 inch of them. 

 

This sort of works, though at the same time likely means working around the GW marketing and simply saying "that wall is an obsticle". I wonder do the Dice that GW launched Sigmar 2.0 come with an obsticle icon? If so that would be a great use for them. 

[AdamJ]

Thank you all for the replies. I will submit this to GW and hope for something in a future FAQ.

On 7/22/2018 at 4:35 PM, EMMachine said:

Hm, I first thought the Obsticle Rule would have a point.

Perhaps I did Misread this point (Page 10 Corerules) here:

Quote

 Some terrain features are obstacles
that block attacks to targets that lie
beyond them

I did think this at one point  but this paragraph feels like flavour text as it doesn’t go on to define “block” or “beyond” in relation to melee attacks. However I could be wrong. I’ll update this if I get anything back.