I wonder about that logic, which is used a fair bit to determine what things you can do to players with non standard grid things. That logic I've heard whenever anything more confrontational than node defacement or info gathering is attempted. "It would not be fair if you could affect someone without fear of retribution."
On the surface, that's true.
However, how is it any different than a katana shroud jumping a Decker? Certainly there is no chance of retribution in the moment. Basically, support characters in general have to accept that they have no defense against a combat character.
I'd like to propose that support characters SHOULD be able to engage in asymmetric PVP. If a shroud kills a support character, that shroud should be shaking in their boots that the support character doesn't set their apartment on fire, lock their cyberware, drain funds from their bank, leave booby traps, etc. No, the shroud can not defend against the attacks, but nor can the support character defend against direct confrontation.
High UE combat characters don't fear from much in the game. They can usually dictate the engagement and make sure they win. Adding in this type of conflict and risk would be a check to the dominance of high UE combat characters and add different facets of PvP that people need to account for. It would also be different avenues for people to drive conflict.
Please consider allowing support skills to have PVP applications to both give those characters more options to drive plot, but also as a plot based check to max UE combat characters.