How to resolve Guts Rolls against one opponent is clear to me, but I haven't ever gotten the hang of what happens when there's multiple conflicting attack directions. I'm not sure if I ever posted this one on the old forums or not, I've been having this doubt for years now. Taskmaster advances forward in the middle of the table, but their player is not careful. As ARO, the hostile player sticks down: A) One shot from a sniper deployed in their to the right of the table. B) One Nanopulser centred on the CrazyKoala to the Taskmaster's left, touching the Taskmaster C) One Carbonite attempt from an Assault Hacker immediately behind the Taskmaster D) One Forward Observer from the reactive player's DZ and as such in front of the Taskmaster. Assuming all attacks hit and the Taskmaster saves against all of them does the Taskmaster; Pick one enemy as reference, fail guts and move 2" to the left where they can gain Partial Cover against A, and is conveniently where they want to go, but they're now nearly in base contact with the trooper B? (Rules argument; Guts Roll is written in the singular enemy and is resolved against only one enemy) Attempt to apply Guts against all enemies, thus not able to both move at all (any direction would be going towards "the enemy trooper") and thus going prone? (Rules argument; guts rule is meant to be compared against all enemies and All At Once means it's all validated simultaneously) Prioritise Guts against the enemies who generate no Danger Zone, thus moving backwards where they can gain total cover against A and Partial Cover against D? (Rules argument; Danger Zone movement is written later and thus have lower priority) Prioritise Guts against the enemies who generate Danger Zones, thus moving forward and to the right where they have no cover against A, B, nor D, but is no longer inside the blast template nor inside Hacking Area? (Rules argument; Danger Zones have a special precedent and priority that's not necessarily obvious, but there) You missed an option, let me explain... If you wish to argue whether a Danger Zone is never properly defined, please do so in a completely different thread. I know that, but I'm really not interested in that conversation.