We received a pile of answers in that FAQ, I'm trying to figure out what questions we have that are still outstanding?

We still aren't in agreement in dealing damage to middle trays, but everything else is looking solid.

There appears to be some question remaining about how threat is calculated for flanked units attacking out the rear edge.

EDIT: I suppose the unit doesn't even need to be flanked, just attacking out the rear edge.

11 hours ago, Darthain said:

We still aren't in agreement in dealing damage to middle trays, but everything else is looking solid.

Really? I think the new wording is less ambiguous. You can apply damage to any figure that won't result in it splitting the unit? Even the Rune Golem example gives some hint at that -- That figure upgrade cannot be assigned damage that would cause the unit to be split into two groups. Implying it can receive damage that wouldn't cause it to split (like applying a single mortal strike to it).

That's my take on it -- previously it was ambiguous if the entire tray could be targeted. This wording really clarifies that it's about damage that causes the split.

The problem is, as you said, that the rule is implied. They said when damage cannot be assigned, but not when it can. We deduce when it can be assigned, but we aren't 100% sure of FFG's intent. Also, as far as I'm concerned, examples are not rules and cannot be treated as such. The rules as written need to explain exactly how to handle a given situation.

While I agree it's not 100% explicit, the change in wording from the Rules Reference seems to address that it's about the damage application to a figure causing the split --

Q: If assigning damage to a figure upgrade that is in the middle tray in the front rank of a unit would cause that unit to be split into two separate groups of trays, must that damage be assigned to another eligible figure?
A: Yes

22.4 Damage cannot be assigned to any figures in a tray that, if removed from the unit, would cause that unit to be split into two separate groups of trays.

The ambiguity about 22.4 was in regard to removing the tray or removing the figure from the unit. I think this question in the FAQ clarifies that this was about the figure and not the tray. I wonder if 22.4 had said 'any figure' (singular) it would have made it more clear to begin with? Since removing the final figure is what ultimately splits the unit.

I think I agree with @Glucose98 here. It seems to me you can assign damage to any tray with accuracy as long as it doesn't split the unit. Without accuracy, you can again target any tray (or combination of trays) with damage but that damage cannot split the unit. Or am I misunderstanding what the question is?

EDIT: W/o accuracy what I meant was you can target any backmost tray with damage but that damage cannot split the unit.

2 hours ago, Willange said:

I think I agree with @Glucose98 here. It seems to me you can assign damage to any tray with accuracy as long as it doesn't split the unit. Without accuracy, you can again target any tray (or combination of trays) with damage but that damage cannot split the unit. Or am I misunderstanding what the question is?

Nope you got it. The original issue with 22.4 was that, you could interpret it as -- damage cannot be assigned to any figures in a tray that, if <that tray was> removed from the unit, would cause it to be split. So the tray protected every slot in it.