Serious answer to this: Medkit is its own Short Skill that lacks the Attack trait and makes a BS Attack Roll, rather than performing a BS Attack. So I would say that a Medkit is not an Attack and therefore doesn't meet the "a successful Attack" part of the Guts requirement (although - as has been pointed out - indisputably one can suffer a Medkit hit). I think limiting Guts to Skills/AROs with the Attack trait is a reasonable first step (I can't think of anything that doesn't have the Attack trait that should cause Guts?). Otherwise I'm increasingly leaning to 2 as providing a definition for "suffering a Successful Attack" that's based in the rules. If it came up in a game tomorrow I'd play it as 2: mostly because Guts is easy enough to forget as it is, let alone when you have to worry about Smoke or Sensor. But @Mahtamori another one to add to the unresolved list.
We don't really need an authority figure to reiterate the entire rulebook, confirming it section for section. Guts Roll rule very clearly states that it happens after a unit has suffered an attack, and an English dictionary should clear up what "suffers" mean in this context. Rules only really need to specify what a word means when it diverges from the dictionary or when a dictionary may confuse what it means. In this case it's very clear "suffers" means "being directly affected by" https://infinitythewiki.com/Guts_Roll The Trooper had suffered one or more successful Attacks–even if all the attackers are in a Null State. Any and all skills with the label "Attack" is an attack, so it doesn't only refer to BS Attack or CC Attack skills, but very literally all skills that affect the target and that is an attack in one form or another. If there is grey areas of the rules, I'd call this pretty damned black and white. As for the mine, do keep in mind that the Place Deployable skill targets the ground and not an enemy trooper. https://infinitythewiki.com/Labels Attack The use of this Special Skill or piece of Equipment is considered an Attack. Remember that you cannot declare attacks against allies or Neutral elements, whether represented by Models or Markers. As is tradition with Corvus Belli by now is that they establish the concept of a "Danger Zone" very specifically in regards to Guts Rolls and proceed to never define what causes Danger Zones, how big it is, etc, and never uses the concept anywhere else in the rules. Does Sensor cause a Guts Roll? As written, yes. Does it cause a Danger Zone? As written, no one except Interruptor can tell, I'm sure. Does Discover cause a Guts Roll? As written, no, it is not an attack. Does Jammer cause a Guts Roll? As written, unambiguously yes because it is an attack. Does it cause a Danger Zone? As written, probably not as it's simply put a BS Attack that can shoot regardless of LOF so in that regard it should be no different from being shot at by a Combi Rifle. Keep in mind that at no point does Guts Roll require you to suffer a negative consequence nor require there to be a negative consequence possible. All that is required is that the unit got hit by an attack. As an abstraction, the unit may be suffering from the attack, even if the attack is never in danger of causing enough suffering to merit abstracting a game state on the unit.
@Mahtamori I think that "suffering" *can* be read as requiring a negative consequence. In Smoke we find this: "The Area of Effect of a Template can affect Allied Troopers as long as the Template has no Damage Attribute and does not inflict any State." The logic is: Smoke can affect Allies because it doesn't cause suffering to them; any Attack with "no Damage Attribute and does not inflict any State" can affect Allies; therefore Attacks with "no Damage Attribute and does not inflict any State" don't cause suffering. Guts requires the target to have "suffered" a Successful Attack; therefore Smoke doesn't cause Guts. However, that requires the initial interpretative leap that "Smoke can affect Allies because it doesn't cause suffering to them" that links Smokes ability to affect Allies to a lack of suffering. It's a reasonable interpretation but certainly more or a stretch than "any trooper affected by an attack suffers it". Edit: I came up with that interpretation arguing against myself because a player I respected's first response was essentially 'nuh ah, that doesn't feel right'. Ironically I was also getting called out for being 'rules lawyery': so I was extra rules lawyery to get an answer that fit how the people calling me out thought the rule should be played. Personally I think it really needs an FAQ if CB wants it to play that way: but I'm happy to play it that way because it gives the people what they want (No Smuts!). Also, re: Danger Zone. It's fairly clear that Guts treats the LOF of attackers as the danger area of LOF based attacks, so - to me - it's a simple conclusion to make that the danger zone is the area the attacker can attack. So ZOC / Hacking Area is the respective danger zone for Jammers (etc) and Hacking Programs. Would be nice for it to be explicit though.
I think that's missing a logical criteria. The rules say that a trooper can be affected by an attack if the attack doesn't deal damage nor imposes any states, this does not mean that the trooper wasn't affected by an attack and says nothing about the word "suffering". Logically going that way would make a difference between passing an ARM save or not because when you pass the save you do not suffer the negative effect and therefore do not suffer from it; and we know this is not true. As you write, it is a logical leap of faith and that shouldn't sit well with anyone. Oh, that's interesting and I hadn't noticed that. You no longer are required to leave the AOE of attacks if they require LOF... I can feel a certain specific headache brewing :(
I don't think you guys are going to solve this one without a FAQ. The answer turns on the definition of "suffers" which isn't defined anywhere in the rules, and also isn't used anywhere else in the rules so its meaning can't be deduced from other uses. There are arguments for and against various meanings for the word "suffers," but no way of determining which meaning CB intended. "Does smoke cause guts" belongs in the unanswered questions list IMHO. Personally I think that until it's answered by FAQ or ijw, this one should be played same as in N3. But that's a preference, not a rules argument.
Absolutely, @QueensGambit , I think we're mostly arguing over how much of the rules relating to Guts need an FAQ than whether there is an FAQ necessary :p I'll be personally arguing in my group that only enemy or neutral sources can cause Guts as a working house rule
Yeah, whereas I'll probably end up with "if it can hit allies you haven't suffered from the attack" as a house rule. The meta I go to for rules opinions were distinctly cold on Smuts.
