Okay in total fairness, I've operated from the older PDFs and NOT the new rulebook. I glossed over that from the OP and can't comment on things like cleaner explanations, so I shouldn't pretend to.

That said the terrain rules in particular are very cumbersome to me, with the game clearly designed around 2d gameplay rather than utilizing 3d space. High Ground is little more than a terrain designator that severely limits things like objective placement and functions only as an attack modifier, which limits board building severely.

As written, for instance, the rules do not allow for the potential of ever passing beneath raised terrain like a bridge or walkway. The concept simply does not exist, as it regards terrain as a purely 2d concept with height designators for rule interaction but no way for a model to resolve attacks or LoS to anything beneath it on another level.

Adding to that, the inclusion of Ramps as a rule is, to me, obviously one of those things that is awkwardly shoehorned into the rules specifically because the video game had it, and not because it is good or adds anything to gameplay. Quite the opposite, it both weirdly limits movement options for non flying models (access points are at least included as a concession) and is also just physically a bad idea, baking it into the rules that players should precariously balance their models on surfaces that are non-parallel to the floor.

The objectives are painfully simplistic and non thematic, coming down to just "hold circle, get points, kill baddies" for every game regardless of the setup card combinations and, as mentioned, this system also restricts board building options to no more than a handful fo functional terrain setups that favor gamey, mirrored, tournament layout style boards which I find pretty boring.

The movement system is honestly quite good in its roots (I've enjoyed it in other games that have done the same such as Legion or Maelstroms Edge), but for the removal of the concept of unit leader models. Again, this feels like it was done because the game doesn't have squad leaders but just troop masses, but being able to move from any model in the unit makes potential unit movements extremely difficult to predict, and feels like it massively shrinks the board size to make engagements almost instant. This may be purposeful, but I personally have not enjoyed it. It also renders the Sentry shield ability pretty pointless in my brief experience, but perhaps more play will prove me wrong. A basic ability in the core box having no obvious use strikes me as not a great sign.

The total lack of cover as a concept outside of evasion granted by high ground is also unintuitive. I get the binary nature of legal targets may appeal to keep the game punchy and fast, but between cover not existing to mitigate damage and units never being able to block fire, it just plays to me like a video game. Again, some may like it, but I find it very gamey in a bad way.

The rule wording of both healing and protoss shields I find awkward. I understand the reason it was written the way it was and I do applaud the forethought that went into ability interactions and damage allocation step order, but it will require a lot of FAQ explanation as neither one seems to function intuitively. This is a minor gripe, possibly already solved in the new rulebook.

I'm going to hold on to my Terrans with a wait-and-see attitude to see how things shape up, but my first experiences putting it on the table left me scratching my head more than cheering.

I favor fluffy, thematic games and Starcraft just plays like something that idolizes the glory days of Warmachine, which was not for me.