Since there's nothing posted here yet, thought I would start with this. This isn't a rule discussion thread, but a repository of issues that are widely agreed upon to be unclear based on rules currently published. Comment with any additions!

1) Vehicle LoS and Cover - Is the page 8 RRG guideline of 50% more important than the clear directive to draw a line from base to base to determine cover for all units? We have interpretations but could use clarification.

2) Compulsory Move ending on barricade or other uneven terrain under height 1 - can a vehicle with Speeder X ignore the barricade if it takes a compulsory move and no other move in its turn? Does it stop short of the barricade despite it being a compulsory (full) move? Do you swap out the barricade and replace? Do you take damage equal to speed?

• EDIT : Alex Davy responded with "You are not allowed to place a Speeder if you cant fit your base on it. So if you land on a barricade, you do not pick it up and mark it. You just put the model on the closer side. This fulfills the compulsory move, so you don't take damage from crashing."

3) Compulsory Move ending on Objective Tokens -

4) Suppression Dealt on Melee Attacks - LTP says ranged attacks on p20 that "the most common way for a unit to gain suppression tokens is to be the target of a ranged attack" and goes on to describe the process. Nowhere in the L2P is suppression from melee discussed. However, the RRG simply says after an attack. It is known that the RRG trumps the L2P, so I would expect clarification on this. I suspect it was unintentional, but an argument could be made that the effects of panic would still mount when involved in a melee?.

5) Fixed: Front weapon attacking unit with wounded/non leader minis out of arc (but within LoS) - Rules say that wounded minis must take damage first, and non-leader minis must take damage first. However there could be a situation where the leader is in arc, allowing the fixed:front weapon to be used. There is no written rule that prevents wounds from being dealt out of firing arc--only a rule that prevents wound being dealt out of LoS.

6) Do Unit Keywords stack? - we know weapon keywords stack, and we suspect unit keywords do too in order for General Weiss to make sense, but this is not explicit in the rules like stacking weapon keywords is.

7) Can you force push a unit out of play or off terrain? Does the movement from high terrain cause clambering damage?

8) Does Cumbersome prevent you from attacking as a result of triggered Standby token? - the rules say you can't attack "during the same activation" but also "If a unit performs a move during its activation, it cannot perform an attack with a weapon that has the cumbersome keyword"--seems to contradict.

EDIT: Needing clarification doesn't mean we are completely lost. I imagine most of us will get by just fine with interpretations that will likely get confirmed by official rulings--I'm just trying to catalog the rules that would benefit from that final ruling!

EDIT 2 : I will not be putting Organized Play rule questions here as there has yet to be a tournament document released. I think we all expect that will answer many questions like what's allowed for basing/modifying minis.

(reserved in case of sticky)

Further to your first point, when analyzing the 50% coverage, is that 50% determined from ground level, or, e.g., from the top of the AT-ST?

There may be a barricade between the two of us on the ground level, but from the top of my AT-ST, none of that barricade may be blocking your defender.

Other questions:

Aim token in melee;

suppression token gained from melee.

22 minutes ago, kac said:

Further to your first point, when analyzing the 50% coverage, is that 50% determined from ground level, or, e.g., from the top of the AT-ST?

There may be a barricade between the two of us on the ground level, but from the top of my AT-ST, none of that barricade may be blocking your defender.

RRG p.31 "Line of Sight"

"A player determines line of sight from the perspective of a mini, using a viewpoint where the center of the mini’s base meets the top of the mini’s sculpt. If a player can see part of an opponent’s mini, which includes that mini’s base, from that viewpoint, that player’s mini has line of sight to that opponent’s mini."

2 minutes ago, Soulless said:

RRG p.31 "Line of Sight"

"A player determines line of sight from the perspective of a mini, using a viewpoint where the center of the mini’s base meets the top of the mini’s sculpt. If a player can see part of an opponent’s mini, which includes that mini’s base, from that viewpoint, that player’s mini has line of sight to that opponent’s mini."

My post has nothing to do with line of sight. It has to do with, when analyzing 50% coverage for obscuration purposes, what viewpoint should be used.

17 minutes ago, kac said:

My post has nothing to do with line of sight. It has to do with, when analyzing 50% coverage for obscuration purposes, what viewpoint should be used.

Right, sry then.

1 hour ago, Big Easy said:

Vehicle LoS and Cover - Is the page 8 RRG guideline of 50% more important than the clear directive to draw a line from base to base to determine cover for all units? We have interpretations but could use clarification.

The Cover Type entry on RRG pg.8 is referring to determining what type of cover a custom piece of terrain provides, nothing more. It is in the section about defining custom terrain for a reason.

The Cover entry on RRG pg.22 does not make any mention of the "50%" rule because a mini gains Light or Heavy cover based on what type of terrain it is obscured by. A mini is either obscured or it isn't. If it is obscured, it gains cover based on what it is being obscured by.

3 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

The Cover Type entry on RRG pg.8 is referring to determining what type of cover a custom piece of terrain provides, nothing more. It is in the section about defining custom terrain for a reason.

The Cover entry on RRG pg.22 do not make any mention of the "50%" rule because a mini gains Light or Heavy cover based on what type of terrain it is obscured by. A mini is either obscured or it isn't. If it is obscured, it gains cover based on what it is being obscured by.

I didn't intend for this thread to be a debate about the interpretation of rules, but rather rules that clearly have enough confusion that they warrant FFG clarification. I personally disagree with some of your assertions, but my interpretation based on what is written is no more or less valid than your interpretation--hence why I included it in a master list of "problem" rules. I expect we will all be using our best interpretations in the meantime.

6 minutes ago, Big Easy said:

I didn't intend for this thread to be a debate about the interpretation of rules, but rather rules that clearly have enough confusion that they warrant FFG clarification. I personally disagree with some of your assertions, but my interpretation based on what is written is no more or less valid than your interpretation--hence why I included it in a master list of "problem" rules. I expect we will all be using our best interpretations in the meantime.

You are certainly allowed to disagree with my assertions. I look forward to a clarification from FFG.

7 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

The Cover Type entry on RRG pg.8 is referring to determining what type of cover a custom piece of terrain provides, nothing more. It is in the section about defining custom terrain for a reason.

The Cover entry on RRG pg.22 does not make any mention of the "50%" rule because a mini gains Light or Heavy cover based on what type of terrain it is obscured by. A mini is either obscured or it isn't. If it is obscured, it gains cover based on what it is being obscured by.

Agreed. Terrain is designated cover types at the start of the game based on the 50% rule to be obscured. Then during the game, if LOS is traced across that terrain, the benefit of the terrain is granted as cover so long as more than half the unit is behind it.

7 minutes ago, Big Easy said:

I didn't intend for this thread to be a debate about the interpretation of rules, but rather rules that clearly have enough confusion that they warrant FFG clarification. I personally disagree with some of your assertions, but my interpretation based on what is written is no more or less valid than your interpretation--hence why I included it in a master list of "problem" rules. I expect we will all be using our best interpretations in the meantime.

Here is the order these rules work.

1. Custom terrain piece
   1. Does this cover 50% of a unit of troopers?
      1. Yes
   2. Does this cover 50% of an AT-ST?
      1. No
   3. What type of Cover does it provide?
      1. Heavy
2. LOS is traced across the terrain.
   1. Is the defender a trooper?
      1. Yes
   2. Is more than 50% of the unit "behind/touching" the terrain?
      1. Yes
   3. Heavy Cover is granted
3. LOS is traced across the terrain
   1. Is the defender a trooper?
      1. Yes
   2. Is more than 50% of the unit "behind/touching" the terrain?
      1. No
   3. No cover is granted
4. LOS is traced across the terrain.
   1. Is the defender an AT-ST
      1. Yes
   2. No cover is granted

Where is the confusion in the cover/LOS rules?

I agree FFG needs to clarify all of this and not trying to be a jerk.

1 hour ago, Big Easy said:

EDIT : Alex Davy responded with "You are not allowed to place a Speeder if you cant fit your base on it. So if you land on a barricade, you do not pick it up and mark it. You just put the model on the closer side. This fulfills the compulsory move, so you don't take damage from crashing."

Can I get a source on this? I believe you, I just want to see where it came from.

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

Agreed. Terrain is designated cover types at the start of the game based on the 50% rule to be obscured. Then during the game, if LOS is traced across that terrain, the benefit of the terrain is granted as cover so long as more than half the unit is behind it.

Here is the order these rules work.

-----

Where is the confusion in the cover/LOS rules?

I agree FFG needs to clarify all of this and not trying to be a jerk.

I don't think you or anyone else is being a jerk, and I thank you for your input! If I were playing IRL I would happily defer to any interpretation (and I agree with yours in fact), but I do think this is worthy of clarification.

For example, "here is the order these rules work" is an assertion in itself. Seemingly valid, but an assumption nonetheless. The 50% and drawing of a line are in two separate sections and make no reference to each other, which is the cause for confusion. You've presented the most logical solution that I believe most people are going with.

5 minutes ago, Cade Bulkin said:

Can I get a source on this? I believe you, I just want to see where it came from.

Make of that what you will, but I tend to be pretty trusting.

Just now, Big Easy said:

Thank you!

Other things off the top of my head;

-Defining what "modify dice" means would clear up some things since the RRG doesn't define the term when discussing attacks, and it appears the term means something different than it does in X-wing and Armada.

*Re-rolling and converting surges do not seem to be considered modifying dice, but they would be in X-wing and Armada. Conversely, cancelling dice with Pierce and Armor seems to be considered a modification, bit wouldn't be in X-wing or Armada.

-Does an attack with Impact convert hits to crits even if the defender lacks armor? RRG contradicts reminder text and the L2P book and suggests yes, although it doesn't matter since crits don't do anything special by that point.

-Can a unit move, take a standby action, and then fire a cumbersome weapon with the standby attack since it is no longer the same activation?

-Do melee attacks cause suppression? RRG says yes, but previews and word of Davies contradict this.

-Can Vader use Saber Throw with relentless? Yes, but clarifying that something can be a card action and an attack action is probably worth it.

-Do unit keywords like precise and Arsenal stack? RRG mentions nothing about this, but preview of General Weiss suggests they're supposed to.

1 minute ago, Big Easy said:

I don't think you or anyone else is being a jerk, and I thank you for your input! If I were playing IRL I would happily defer to any interpretation (and I agree with yours in fact), but I do think this is worthy of clarification.

For example, "here is the order these rules work" is an assertion in itself. Seemingly valid, but an assumption nonetheless. The 50% and drawing of a line are in two separate sections and make no reference to each other, which is the cause for confusion. You've presented the most logical solution that I believe most people are going with.

The rules on Page 8 already very clearly state they are to be used before the game starts to determine what kind of cover they will provide to various units, and are not intended to be used during the course of the game.

Quote

The terrain rules in this section are designed to accommodate the kind of custom-built terrain found on wargaming tables. However, for the purposes of STAR WARS: LEGION, all that matters is that players agree on which terrain to use and the rules governing that terrain before playing the game.

You draw a line to see if you go through the cover. If thats a yes you then see if 50% of the model/unit is covered or not

Thats about it

Just now, DarkTrooperZero said:

You draw a line to see if you go through the cover. If thats a yes you then see if 50% of the model/unit is covered or not

Thats about it

No, the 50% is supposed to be checked before the game, as the rules on Page 8 clearly state.

Starting to sound more and more like a rule that needs clarification!

2 hours ago, Big Easy said:

Compulsory Move ending on barricade or other uneven terrain under height 1 - can a vehicle with Speeder X ignore the barricade if it takes a compulsory move and no other move in its turn? Does it stop short of the barricade despite it being a compulsory (full) move? Do you swap out the barricade and replace?

• EDIT : Alex Davy responded with "You are not allowed to place a Speeder if you cant fit your base on it. So if you land on a barricade, you do not pick it up and mark it. You just put the model on the closer side. This fulfills the compulsory move, so you don't take damage from crashing."

If we are asking for clarification on this might as well include a compulsory move that would end on an Objective Token. I know how I interpret it but apparently other people might interpret it differently.

30 minutes ago, DarkTrooperZero said:

You draw a line to see if you go through the cover. If thats a yes you then see if 50% of the model/unit is covered or not

Thats about it

There is a subtle difference and with LOS and cover and I'm not sure which you are referring.

If terrain obscures/hides/covers 50% of the model, the terrain will provide cover, and that bonus is whatever you give to it - light or heavy.

Contrast to LOS and attacking. The commander of a unit measures LOS to each defending mini. If LOS crosses over the terrain, that mini counts as being in cover. If more than 50% of the unit counts as being in cover, the whole unit gains cover.

You do not measure LOS to a unit, and then check to see if the terrain obscures the mini. Terrain gives a flat bonus across the entire piece.

14 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

There is a subtle difference and with LOS and cover and I'm not sure which you are referring.

If terrain obscures/hides/covers 50% of the model, the terrain will provide cover, and that bonus is whatever you give to it - light or heavy.

Contrast to LOS and attacking. The commander of a unit measures LOS to each defending mini. If LOS crosses over the terrain, that mini counts as being in cover. If more than 50% of the unit counts as being in cover, the whole unit gains cover.

You do not measure LOS to a unit, and then check to see if the terrain obscures the mini. Terrain gives a flat bonus across the entire piece.

Based on how it sounds like it’s going to go, I’d change your wording to “if terrain covers 50% of the model at the start of the game, when we assume the best possible angle and outcome for the defender”

You can’t just say “if it covers 50% of the model”, as I believe that’s where the confusion is introduced. Covering 50% of the model is subjective and based on the current position of the attack and defender. But it looks like that’s not how it’s supposed to be taken, rather we make assumptions of position as mentioned in the first paragraph.

2 minutes ago, Thoras said:

Based on how it sounds like it’s going to go, I’d change your wording to “if terrain covers 50% of the model at the start of the game, when we assume the best possible angle and outcome for the defender”

You can’t just say “if it covers 50% of the model”, as I believe that’s where the confusion is introduced. Covering 50% of the model is subjective and based on the current position of the attack and defender. But it looks like that’s not how it’s supposed to be taken, rather we make assumptions of position as mentioned in the first paragraph.

Alternately, if the wording was "is capable of covering 50% of the model, then it will provide cover to that model during the game. The players then agree as to whether it will provide "Heavy" or "Light" cover to that model." It should indicate what I assume is the intended meaning more clearly. We can use the Barricade as an example, since we have hard and fast rules for the barricades and how they interact with Trooper units.

9 minutes ago, Thoras said:

Based on how it sounds like it’s going to go, I’d change your wording to “if terrain covers 50% of the model at the start of the game, when we assume the best possible angle and outcome for the defender”

You can’t just say “if it covers 50% of the model”, as I believe that’s where the confusion is introduced. Covering 50% of the model is subjective and based on the current position of the attack and defender. But it looks like that’s not how it’s supposed to be taken, rather we make assumptions of position as mentioned in the first paragraph.

I agree it could have been worded better, but the confusion is based on people not reading the rules and then providing advice to other people. On Saturday, I saw a lot of people give blatantly wrong answers to rules questions and try to tell the TO on how the rules are supposed to be read. Combine that with a huge player base and you've created the perfect storm where people are looking for answers and can't filter the right from the wrong. The Legion FB page is a perfect example of this.

FFG will fix the rules, so it's not a big deal.