As I'm reading it, Fire Support shouldn't be allowed to happen EVER with Rules As Written.

Now I don't at all think that's Rules As Intended, but just trying to show how screwy the wording of the whole thing is. Just stay with me.

-First and Second bullet of Fire Support (pg 39)
"•During the “Form Attack Pool” step of a friendly unit’s ranged attack, each mini in a unit with the fire support keyword may contribute an eligible weapon to the attack pool if that mini has line of sight to any mini in the defending unit.

• A weapon is considered eligible if it is a ranged weapon, if the defending unit is at the weapon’s range, and if any other requirements of using the weapon are met. "

-First Bullet of Ranged Weapon(pg 57)
"A weapon with a blue range icon (1/2/3/4/5/+) is a ranged weapon. Ranged weapons can only be used during ranged attacks ."

And from the official FAQ thread, posted Oct 11th. https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/277344-star-wars-legion-official-rulings/
"The errata'ed version of Limited Visibility limits attacks beyond a certain range. Using the Fire Support keyword is not an attack , and thus its use is unaffected by the condition card."

Now, I don't think Fire Support actually shouldn't ever be able to be used. But I also think the same reasoning that allows it to work through limited visibility is the same wording that would allow you to add the weapons dice to the attack pool, despite being engaged.

Rewording the previous ruling in the way that makes logical sense to me, based on RAW.
"Being engaged prevents ranged attacks from being made. Using the Fire Support keyword is not an attack, and thus its use is unaffected by being engaged."

I just want to be done with this, but can't wrap my head around the Rules As Written.

To be clear.
I THINK Fire Support should be able to be used, in general.
I THINK Fire Support shouldn't be able to be used out of melee.
I THINK the rules are written poorly on both of these matters.

1 hour ago, Jon_DDA said:

As I'm reading it, Fire Support shouldn't be allowed to happen EVER with Rules As Written.

Now I don't at all think that's Rules As Intended, but just trying to show how screwy the wording of the whole thing is. Just stay with me.

-First and Second bullet of Fire Support (pg 39)
"•During the “Form Attack Pool” step of a friendly unit’s ranged attack, each mini in a unit with the fire support keyword may contribute an eligible weapon to the attack pool if that mini has line of sight to any mini in the defending unit.

• A weapon is considered eligible if it is a ranged weapon, if the defending unit is at the weapon’s range, and if any other requirements of using the weapon are met. "

-First Bullet of Ranged Weapon(pg 57)
"A weapon with a blue range icon (1/2/3/4/5/+) is a ranged weapon. Ranged weapons can only be used during ranged attacks ."

And from the official FAQ thread, posted Oct 11th. https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/277344-star-wars-legion-official-rulings/
"The errata'ed version of Limited Visibility limits attacks beyond a certain range. Using the Fire Support keyword is not an attack , and thus its use is unaffected by the condition card."

Now, I don't think Fire Support actually shouldn't ever be able to be used. But I also think the same reasoning that allows it to work through limited visibility is the same wording that would allow you to add the weapons dice to the attack pool, despite being engaged.

Rewording the previous ruling in the way that makes logical sense to me, based on RAW.
"Being engaged prevents ranged attacks from being made. Using the Fire Support keyword is not an attack, and thus its use is unaffected by being engaged."

I just want to be done with this, but can't wrap my head around the Rules As Written.

To be clear.
I THINK Fire Support should be able to be used, in general.
I THINK Fire Support shouldn't be able to be used out of melee.
I THINK the rules are written poorly on both of these matters.

Fire Support was made with Clones in mind. The whole reason for it and token sharing is that Clones wouldn’t survive without them. Since the creation of Legion’s clone army, the developers have thought why not use that keyword elsewhere, so now we have two units (one Imp, one rebel) that can use it as well. Going back to the clones, and that they wouldn’t survive, is because without token sharing and Fire Support, they’re too expensive and there will be too few units in an army. Generally the republic has only 8 units to every other faction’s 10. That being said, if you have a Battle Card (objective, deployment & condition - in this case condition) that takes away that ability (namely Fire Support) it will weaken the entire faction, so an exception needed to be made. It sounds like, from the wording, that the developers are suggesting what you are saying (fire even while in melee), but if you know the above backstory/reasoning it should make more sense. It’s about keeping an even playing field and Limited Visibility kinda gets in the way. There is no intent to allow clones to fire while engaged as that would make them somewhat broken.

The developers have talked about stuff like this in interviews, but I guess you still have to connect the pieces. I hope that explains it all.

9 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

Fire Support was made with Clones in mind. The whole reason for it and token sharing is that Clones wouldn’t survive without them. Since the creation of Legion’s clone army, the developers have thought why not use that keyword elsewhere, so now we have two units (one Imp, one rebel) that can use it as well. Going back to the clones, and that they wouldn’t survive, is because without token sharing and Fire Support, they’re too expensive and there will be too few units in an army. Generally the republic has only 8 units to every other faction’s 10. That being said, if you have a Battle Card (objective, deployment & condition - in this case condition) that takes away that ability (namely Fire Support) it will weaken the entire faction, so an exception needed to be made. It sounds like, from the wording, that the developers are suggesting what you are saying (fire even while in melee), but if you know the above backstory/reasoning it should make more sense. It’s about keeping an even playing field and Limited Visibility kinda gets in the way. There is no intent to allow clones to fire while engaged as that would make them somewhat broken.

The developers have talked about stuff like this in interviews, but I guess you still have to connect the pieces. I hope that explains it all.

I've already stated I agree that it's probably not RAI, but VERY much so appears to be RAW.

Do you have any proof of this "There is no intent to allow clones to fire while engaged. . ." from the developers? Any stream to reference? I've submitted a rules question to the FAQ already, I suppose that's sufficient for now. Really just trying to get a feel for how other people are seeing this RAW

One of the requirements for using a ranged weapon is that you cannot use one while engaged in melee. Because you can't fire out of melee you can't use fire support, regardless if fire support isn't an attack as it still needs to meet the criteria for being an attack.

I would further argue that because you must meet all criteria for using the weapon, that limited visibility also still affects fire support as that adds that you must be within range "x" to attack.

46 minutes ago, Jon_DDA said:

I've already stated I agree that it's probably not RAI, but VERY much so appears to be RAW.

Do you have any proof of this "There is no intent to allow clones to fire while engaged. . ." from the developers? Any stream to reference? I've submitted a rules question to the FAQ already, I suppose that's sufficient for now. Really just trying to get a feel for how other people are seeing this RAW

There is no proof that that is explicitly what the developers thought. There are a few interviews where Alex Davy (head developer) has mentioned that the Republic faction would not be viable without Fire Support or token sharing (can’t remember which, sorry - try the Clone Wars YouTube vid where Alex and Luke play with the new faction. Alex May have mentioned the Republic faction’s weakness in there, but there were others too), the not being able to fire while engaged is just connecting the pieces as I mentioned. Most games have this kind of a problem, where rules can be interpreted multiple ways, the only thing you can do is go by what you think the intent was and if following the rules through that interpretation would end up breaking them. As I mentioned Clones would be kinda broken firing out of melee, so I am 100% certain the intent was that they not be able to fire while engaged. If enough people are interpreting a rule other than what is intended, FFG unusually posts some kind of update or FAQ with updated instructions. This is the first I’ve heard of the Fire Support being interpreted to fire while Engaged, but I see where you’re coming from. Others no doubt discounted that interpretation because of the reasons I gave above (too broken). This will not be the first rule that can be interpreted multiple ways and won’t be the last. The only way to make sure things can’t be interpreted other than as intended is to use legal jargon and have the rules read as a contract and nobody wants that. As far as misinterpretation goes for rules FFG isn’t the worst offender I’ve seen and they do respond reasonably quickly (for a company). Hope this helps.

1 hour ago, thepopemobile100 said:

One of the requirements for using a ranged weapon is that you cannot use one while engaged in melee. Because you can't fire out of melee you can't use fire support, regardless if fire support isn't an attack as it still needs to meet the criteria for being an attack.

I would further argue that because you must meet all criteria for using the weapon, that limited visibility also still affects fire support as that adds that you must be within range "x" to attack.

This. It's pretty clear at the intent of Fire support.

I don't understand why people are confused...

4 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:

This. It's pretty clear at the intent of Fire support.

I don't understand why people are confused...

It's one thing to interpret the rules as "you think" they were intended , and while playing casually this is fine but not knowing how this actually works while going into an RPQ (sorry Prime) with the intent to qualify for a world's invite. Had the former been the case most people would be saying that because the detachment keyword references that you deploy a move distance away that you cannot deploy that unit on another level (ie position your detachment on another elevation as long as horizontally is a movement 1 template away) , however this is indeed the case that you can put a detachment 2 /3 range higher as long as horizontally it is within a movement 1 template away. Even the lead judge says his interpretation was that he would have thought it was position a movement 1 away just like scout, however that I interpretation is wrong. I came across a similar thing in the Star Wars RPG before as well, sometimes it's easy to read too much into the intent when it the intent is exactly the same s RAW.

For now I'm on the side that you cannot fire support out of melee , I'm also on the side of fire support not allowing emergency stims to keep going indefinitely while you keep getting order tokens , but I could be entirely wrong with these (although we do know it bypasses the rally check, so it could well bypass the end of activation, fwiw I submitted two questions in the last two months on the latter with no reply.)

It's obvious that the rules don't support the situation and need to be clarified either in their forum FAQ or in the rrg. Probably both.

22 hours ago, syrath said:

I'm also on the side of fire support not allowing emergency stims to keep going indefinitely while you keep getting order tokens , but I could be entirely wrong with these (although we do know it bypasses the rally check, so it could well bypass the end of activation, fwiw I submitted two questions in the last two months on the latter with no reply.)

There was an interview where the developers said Fire Support does allow Emergency Stims to keep working and for the unit not to take damage from poison etc, etc. Having played clones, I can tell you it’s nearly impossible to do indefinitely, even if it’s exactly what you want. Play Obi’s 1 pip and it’s game over for that unit, or if you require another unit to have an order to do something. If you keep using one order token to keep that single unit alive, it also means you’re neglecting other units and will probably lose one of them. Also Fire Support needs to be used sparingly. Overuse cuts down on activations on an already limited activation army. If you still think it’s OP though, I can only suggest trying to play the clones and see what I mean. It’s one of those things that looks one way on paper, but is the opposite irl.

3 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

There was an interview where the developers said Fire Support does allow Emergency Stims to keep working and for the unit not to take damage from poison etc, etc. Having played clones, I can tell you it’s nearly impossible to do indefinitely, even if it’s exactly what you want. Play Obi’s 1 pip and it’s game over for that unit, or if you require another unit to have an order to do something. If you keep using one order token to keep that single unit alive, it also means you’re neglecting other units and will probably lose one of them. Also Fire Support needs to be used sparingly. Overuse cuts down on activations on an already limited activation army. If you still think it’s OP though, I can only suggest trying to play the clones and see what I mean. It’s one of those things that looks one way on paper, but is the opposite irl.

I think you misread what I mean my point is that the rules are unclear on how fire support works,

13 minutes ago, syrath said:

I think you misread what I mean my point is that the rules are unclear on how fire support works,

Apparently I did, sorry. 😊 I totally agree. They should have included examples and instances in the RRG. It sucks to have interviews here and there to get the full gist. The rules should be more complete on their own.

Ok, I guess I'm confused about what the question is. No, Fire support can't be used out of melee because the unit doesn't have an eligible weapon to use. What's the issue?

Paraphrasing the RRG excerpts from the bottom up:

• Using Fire Support is not an attack.
• Ranged Weapons can be used only during attacks.
• Using a weapon in fire support mandates that all requirements for using a weapon are met.

Since Fire support is not an attack (ranged or otherwise), ranged weapons cannot be used with fire support, thus defeating the purpose of the keyword in RAW.

We all know that's not RAI, but the RAW technically does not allow it with the current wording. I expect this to be clarified in the next revision. This really seems to be a case of specific beating general. Normally, ranged weapons can be used only in an attack. But Fire Control explicitly allows you to ignore that condition, even though it's not considered an attack.

Fire Support is used during a ranged attack, I fail to see the problem...

Fire support is merely adding additional attack dice to an attack. The unit providing the extra support is not performing an attack action the orignal unit is. You seem to be really overthinking this.

3 hours ago, costi said:

Fire Support is used during a ranged attack, I fail to see the problem...

It’s pretty clear that OP is wrong. He also posted a similar thread on Facebook but in this thread he argued that you could use fire support in melee. It wasn’t until I pointed out that you can only use Fire Support during a ranged action, that he deleted his post and came here.

I’m assuming he’s new to legion hence the confusion.

On 10/22/2019 at 6:46 AM, R3dReVenge said:

It’s pretty clear that OP is wrong. He also posted a similar thread on Facebook but in this thread he argued that you could use fire support in melee. It wasn’t until I pointed out that you can only use Fire Support during a ranged action, that he deleted his post and came here.

I’m assuming he’s new to legion hence the confusion.

K. . .bud

I never deleted the post, It's still there to see to this day. My initial thought was yes, you can use it. I get to change my mind given time and new information. I specifically didn't delete it so people could see my thought process on the matter.

I'm not new to Legion, the wording is unclear if you're going for a pure RAW approach. I've stated in every post since that
" I THINK Fire Support should be able to be used, in general.
I THINK Fire Support shouldn't be able to be used out of melee.
I THINK the rules are written poorly on both of these matters ."

So you can take your negative attitude elsewhere, other's are in agreement that the wording is not 100% crystal clear and needs clarification. I don't know what you think I'm wrong about exactly.

I posted in Reddit and Discord about this too. Just trying to get as much input as possible, not trying to "cover my tracks" as you seem to have accused me of.

I did delete some more negative reactions to your very unhelpful "You're wrong bud" (Assuming that was you, if not, my bad), because they weren't constructive.

18 hours ago, Jon_DDA said:

So you can take your negative attitude elsewhere, other's are in agreement that the wording is not 100% crystal clear and needs clarification. I don't know what you think I'm wrong about exactly.

I posted in Reddit and Discord about this too. Just trying to get as much input as possible, not trying to "cover my tracks" as you seem to have accused me of.

I did delete some more negative reactions to your very unhelpful "You're wrong bud" (Assuming that was you, if not, my bad), because they weren't constructive.

No need to get all sensitive bud. It's ok to be wrong.

This introduction to legion video is perfect for you.

Give it a watch. The developers explain how fire support works in it.