If Luke uses I am a Jedi and selects a unit with Fire Support, can that unit fire support?

Specifically:

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.

Does this passage only cover things like weather a weapon is exhausted or would it also include things like I am a Jedi preventing the model from performing an attack?

I think the reasoning behind the ruling on Limited Visibility can be used to inform this one.

I’d say you cannot Fire Support because the conditions for using your weapons haven’t been met.

I am a Jedi says the selected enemy units "cannot perform attacks," and Fire Support is very specifically not an attack. So unless ruled otherwise, it seems clear to me that they can still use Fire Support.

1 minute ago, Lochlan said:

I am a Jedi says the selected enemy units "cannot perform attacks," and Fire Support is very specifically not an attack. So unless ruled otherwise, it seems clear to me that they can still use Fire Support.

Did you see the FAQ entry? They must meet the requirements as if they are performing an attack (even though they aren’t actually performing one). This is the reason they can’t Fire Support beyond the Limited Visibility range. I think the same logic allows I Am A Jedi to prevent Fire Support.

1 hour ago, nashjaee said:

Did you see the FAQ entry? They must meet the requirements as if they are performing an attack (even though they aren’t actually performing one). This is the reason they can’t Fire Support beyond the Limited Visibility range. I think the same logic allows I Am A Jedi to prevent Fire Support.

Yes, but the only restriction placed on them by I am a Jedi is that they cannot perform attacks. Fire Support is not an attack. The other situations they specifically address in the Rules Questions thread are situations that render the unit's ranged weapons ineligible to be used, which is a requirement for Fire Support, which is why the unit can't use Fire Support in those situations.

However, I wouldn't be surprised to see a clarification in the future stating that it does indeed prevent Fire Support. I just feel that, currently, it does not.

They have been very clear fire support is not an attack.

5 hours ago, syrath said:

They have been very clear fire support is not an attack.

That’s not the issue... here’s the direct quote from the ruling:

“The unit using Fire Support must be able to contribute weapons that are eligible to be used for a ranged attack as if that unit were making a ranged attack .”

Although it’s well-understood that FS is not an attack, the unit still must follow any relevant rules/restrictions for an attack.

”Fire Support is not an attack” is primarily relevant for things that trigger off of attacks (for example, the command cards Covering Fire and Coordinated Fire).

3 hours ago, nashjaee said:

That’s not the issue... here’s the direct quote from the ruling:

“The unit using Fire Support must be able to contribute weapons that are eligible to be used for a ranged attack as if that unit were making a ranged attack .”

Although it’s well-understood that FS is not an attack, the unit still must follow any relevant rules/restrictions for an attack.

”Fire Support is not an attack” is primarily relevant for things that trigger off of attacks (for example, the command cards Covering Fire and Coordinated Fire).

I know however the wording for I am a jedi is that they cannot perform an attack. They can still be eligible, just that they cannot actually attack so in the above situation the unit can still be eligible to attack but is unable to do so. They have used similar wording before , for example a unit that is eligible for fire support has wording that says that once they fire support they are considered to have been activated, yet they do not actually go through activation, so things like emergency stims, suppression and the morale check never trigger. So you can still go through the steps to check if they are eligible, it's just tenant attack, hence Fire Support is legal.

For the record I chimed in on the wording on fire support not triggering Emergency Stims and while (as usual) I never got a reply from the rules question I dropped FFG there was ultimately a confirmation that emergency stims did not trigger.

Anyway determining eligibility is not the same as making an attack. Fire Support is able to get round lots of these little things

If you’re not allowed to perform any attacks, how are your weapons ”eligible” to be used “ as if you were performing a ranged attack” ?

Again, it does not matter that you are not actually “performing” an attack. You’re not eligible to do so, therefore FS doesn’t work.

No, for the reasons stated above.

Question: While the effects of the Limited Visibility condition card are active, can a unit use Fire Support even if the distance between it and the defender is beyond the ranges specified by Limited Visibility?

Answer: No. The unit using Fire Support must be able to contribute weapons that are eligible to be used for a ranged attack as if that unit were making a ranged attack . The defender is beyond the range at which a ranged attack can be performed, and therefore the unit's ranged weapons are not eligible to be added to a ranged attack at that distance via Fire Support.

See the above ruling for a similar rule. The unit above wouldn't be able to attack normally but because they were eligible to be able to (other than the temporary visibility rules imposed by the battlefield card) they could still fire aupport.

3 minutes ago, syrath said:

Messed up formatting here.

Regardless being eligible to make an attack and actually attacking are not the same thing, it wouldn't surprise me to here either ruling from FFG at this point though. As I said I made the same argument that the Fire Support rules say , that they were treated to have activated , however they ruled that fire support do not go through the steps of activating.

So if you follow the steps to see if you are eligible for an attack, that doesn't necessarily mean you are attacking, so you can still meet that criteria even though I am a Jedi says you cannot attack. I'd love to hear a ruling from FFG at this point, but I'm no longer wasting my time submitting questions, when I never get a reply (my last 4 or 5 questions have gone unasnwered)

8 hours ago, syrath said:

See the above ruling for a similar rule. The unit above wouldn't be able to attack normally but because they were eligible to be able to (other than the temporary visibility rules imposed by the battlefield card) they could still fire aupport.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. This is the ruling that I’ve been using to support my argument this whole time... It doesn’t say what you seem to think it’s saying. The FS unit doesn’t get to violate the Limited Visibility rule because it has to meet all the conditions of making an attack “ as if it were making a ranged attack.”

1 hour ago, nashjaee said:

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. This is the ruling that I’ve been using to support my argument this whole time... It doesn’t say what you seem to think it’s saying. The FS unit doesn’t get to violate the Limited Visibility rule because it has to meet all the conditions of making an attack “ as if it were making a ranged attack.”

Yes, but again, the only restriction actually placed on the unit by I am a Jedi is that it can't attack.

I think Syrath's activation example is a good one here. When a unit uses Fire Support, it flips its order token as if it had activated, but does not actually count as having activated. Therefore nothing that triggers off of activation (e.g. Poison, Emergency Stims, etc) triggers. Similarly, Fire Support is very similar to attacking, and must meet all of the same criteria, but is explicitly not an attack.

Personally, I do think that I am a Jedi should prevent Fire Support, and I think that may be the intent, I just don't believe that Rules as Written supports that. I also think that using Fire Support should count as activating, but that's another topic...

20 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

Yes, but again, the only restriction actually placed on the unit by I am a Jedi is that it can't attack.

I think Syrath's activation example is a good one here. When a unit uses Fire Support, it flips its order token as if it had activated, but does not actually count as having activated. Therefore nothing that triggers off of activation (e.g. Poison, Emergency Stims, etc) triggers. Similarly, Fire Support is very similar to attacking, and must meet all of the same criteria, but is explicitly not an attack.

Personally, I do think that I am a Jedi should prevent Fire Support, and I think that may be the intent, I just don't believe that Rules as Written supports that. I also think that using Fire Support should count as activating, but that's another topic...

I 100% understand the argument, I just emphatically disagree with it because of this line in the ruling:

"as if it were making a ranged attack"

If we didn't have this ruling with that line, I would totally be on board with your argument. I think the above makes it abundantly clear that RAW does not allow FS to work in this case. You guys are complicating it further than it needs to be. None of your weapons are eligible to be used because you can't attack. You aren't actually making an attack for the purposes of things that trigger from attacks, but you still must meet all the requirements for an attack . If that wasn't required, then you'd be able to FS beyond the Limited Visibility range. It truly is this simple. And the "activation example" doesn't really affect or inform this interaction.

1 hour ago, nashjaee said:

I 100% understand the argument, I just emphatically disagree with it because of this line in the ruling:

"as if it were making a ranged attack"

If we didn't have this ruling with that line, I would totally be on board with your argument. I think the above makes it abundantly clear that RAW does not allow FS to work in this case. You guys are complicating it further than it needs to be. None of your weapons are eligible to be used because you can't attack. You aren't actually making an attack for the purposes of things that trigger from attacks, but you still must meet all the requirements for an attack . If that wasn't required, then you'd be able to FS beyond the Limited Visibility range. It truly is this simple. And the "activation example" doesn't really affect or inform this interaction.

Technically the weapons are eligible to make the attack the unit is disallowed from making one. I can see them ruling either way and the earlier quote was right in what I was trying to get across in that the Fire Support rules clearly say "as if it had been activated" but anything that triggers off of activating never happena, so it can bypass the suppression, the courage check, and emergency stims , which means that it can actually stay on table a few rounds after triggering stims, which was what I incorrectly argued against.

There is evidence to support both points of view here and I'm not second guessing which way it would go.

3 hours ago, syrath said:

Technically the weapons are eligible to make the attack the unit is disallowed from making one.

No, that's wrong. The wording on Limited Visibility is the same as I Am A Jedi: "During the first round, units cannot perform ranged attacks beyond range 2. [...]"

If your argument was correct, then FS would also work on Limited Visibility. LV and I Am A Jedi must necessarily work the same way . Either they both work or neither does. We already know LV does not work based on the ruling...