Ok This stealth device is getting a bit of a headache as it contradicts its self and its ruling.

Now you loose the device if your hit by an attack but this doesn't state weather its a shield hit or a hull hit, now my understanding is that your shields protect your ship and this would also include the stealth device so what's the point of a shield if it cant protect the device, The FAQ needs updating and the Stealth device rule should be changed to "If the Hull is hit by a attack" other wise you loose a shield and a stealth device. Come on make it a bit more real FFG. if not then the SD should be a 1-2 pts card not a 3pts card.

Oh and splash damage and asteroids don't take the SD off, get lost will ya hitting a asteroid or getting a blast from a bomb or seismic charge is going to be a lot more powerful then a single blast from a laser gun you twits. But wait youll loose a shield and the SD will be protected..... Contradicting fools.

Ok This stealth device is getting a bit of a headache as it contradicts its self and its ruling.

Now you loose the device if your hit by an attack but this doesn't state weather its a shield hit or a hull hit, now my understanding is that your shields protect your ship and this would also include the stealth device so what's the point of a shield if it cant protect the device, The FAQ needs updating and the Stealth device rule should be changed to "If the Hull is hit by a attack" other wise you loose a shield and a stealth device. Come on make it a bit more real FFG. if not then the SD should be a 1-2 pts card not a 3pts card.

All I really see here is whining. 'Hit by an attack' is fully defined and clear. We can argue all day about whether it makes sense that the device is disabled if you only lose shields, but it wont change the fact that it is for the purposes of this game.

I think the upgrade is appropriately costed as is. If it were cheaper, you would see TIE spam lists where it was on every ship. The 3 cost is enough to deter this to some degree, but still make it useful for many ships. Have you tried to hit a TIE Interceptor with one of these, particularly either of the named pilots? I can tell you it can be extremely difficult....

Oh and splash damage and asteroids don't take the SD off, get lost will ya hitting a asteroid or getting a blast from a bomb or seismic charge is going to be a lot more powerful then a single blast from a laser gun you twits. But wait youll loose a shield and the SD will be protected..... Contradicting fools.

Sigh... If it bothers you that much you are free to house-rule it. Its odd to me that you dont like that it comes off when the shields are hit by attacks but then think it should be taken off by hitting random things.

If you made it so it came off from asteroids, etc, a common tactic would be to just block ships with it onto asteroids to remove it (OMG SO UNREALISTIC, in space I couldn't fly over/around him wahhhh).

Seriously, if you want a simple, fun game that has some obvious "suspend realism" moments to keep it easy and fun but still make sense, then you are in the right place. If you want a hyper-realistic overly complex game then you are in the wrong place.

We're talking about a game about space fighters (that don't follow any actual rules of physics) and magical Jedi powers. How much realism are you really looking for? If you need another "realistic" way to explain things away, try this: the stealth device itself remains intact, but the effects of it (the "stealth") are lost as soon as an enemy successfully hones in on you with accurate fire. In other words: "He's over here somewhere! I can't seem to quite pin him down! Oh, wait, where my laser just hit – THAT'S where he is! Lock onto that point." An asteroid don't care where you are.

Either way, it's balanced quite well for the game right now, both in terms of effects and cost. Change it in your own games if you like, no one's gonna stop you.

If it helps you visualize "losing" the Stealth Device just think of it as the enemy finally figuring out how to adjust its sensors to target the ship. It isn't really "lost" but rather is no longer effective and it is to complex to reconfigure during a battle.

If it helps you visualize "losing" the Stealth Device just think of it as the enemy finally figuring out how to adjust its sensors to target the ship. It isn't really "lost" but rather is no longer effective and it is to complex to reconfigure during a battle.

Bingo. It represents your ship no longer being stealthy, not suddenly being damaged and less agile.

Ok This stealth device is getting a bit of a headache as it contradicts its self and its ruling.

Now you loose the device if your hit by an attack but this doesn't state weather its a shield hit or a hull hit, now my understanding is that your shields protect your ship and this would also include the stealth device so what's the point of a shield if it cant protect the device, The FAQ needs updating and the Stealth device rule should be changed to "If the Hull is hit by a attack" other wise you loose a shield and a stealth device. Come on make it a bit more real FFG. if not then the SD should be a 1-2 pts card not a 3pts card.

Oh and splash damage and asteroids don't take the SD off, get lost will ya hitting a asteroid or getting a blast from a bomb or seismic charge is going to be a lot more powerful then a single blast from a laser gun you twits. But wait youll loose a shield and the SD will be protected..... Contradicting fools.

No it's not.

"Hit by an attack" is a perfectly straightforward result and it doesn't matter whether it was Hull or Shields. Damage from an asteroid or splash damage does not qualify as being "hit by an attack."

You're making an argument based on fluff interpretation of the rules-i.e. "I think I know what the intention of the rule is better than the developers."

Asteroids existed in the game before SD, Assault Missiles were developed in tandem with SD, so it was within their power to word it as hull damage if they so chose. They didn't. And fluff interpretation is not game balance: if the SD only came off with hull damage, then SD would be of *huge* benefit to the Rebel side, and minimally to the Imperials. Biggs and R2-D2 would be an "I WIN" button. Game balance is more important than simulating every particular of what you think the storytelling side should be.

I like the idea of this card but I do not like the implementation of it.

There is something that doesn't ring true, like it was a token effort by FFG.

If you start with 1 agility adding 1 agility doesn't make it much safer.

but if you start with 3 agility and add 1 agility you have something slick.

but it's the same device.

Stealth is a lot more than ECM or ECCM but unfortunately I think

ECM is really what they have represented with a card that adds 1 agility.

A truly stealthy ship should have more than one bonus agility.

Say something that blocks all targeting locks and the effects of focus on attack rolls,

or maybe something that changes defense dice rolls ...

"you may change a number of blank or focus results to evade equal to your agility ."

Something like that or some combination of, with blocking target lock.

FFG needed a card in the mix that added agility to a ship,

but I for one am I'm sorry that they chose the wrong concept.

Sometimes (often) simplicity is the correct choice. Try not looking at it as "agility" – look at it as a 1-point bonus to your defense, of which your agility is also a part.

The suggestions you made would basically give high agility ships invulnerability and do almost nothing to fix your central complaint about the ability not helping low evade ships. With a TIE fighter or Interceptor, for instance, I am guaranteed 3 evades every single time I am shot at? Okay. Do you still want to play or should we just say I win already?

Anyway, this is a "Stealth Device Upgrade" – a phrase that should inherently tell you these are not "truly stealthy ships." They were not designed for stealth. This is a bolt-on addition. And the card works very fairly as it is.

Stealth is a lot more than ECM or ECCM but unfortunately I think

ECM is really what they have represented with a card that adds 1 agility.

When dealing with the SW universe our ideas of phsyics can pretty much be thrown out the window.

Plus the card does do pretty much exactly what it should, fluff wise based on the name.

It does not give your ship a cloaking device, it just makes it harder for someone to get a good weapons lock. That means you'll be harder to hit, not impossible to see.

For ships with 1 Aglilty that means they are already fairly easy to hit, so a upgrade like this wouldn't give them as much of a boost as something like an Tie/In which is already rather nimble and hard to hit anyway.

Ok This stealth device is getting a bit of a headache as it contradicts its self and its ruling.

Now you loose the device if your hit by an attack but this doesn't state weather its a shield hit or a hull hit, now my understanding is that your shields protect your ship and this would also include the stealth device so what's the point of a shield if it cant protect the device, The FAQ needs updating and the Stealth device rule should be changed to "If the Hull is hit by a attack" other wise you loose a shield and a stealth device. Come on make it a bit more real FFG. if not then the SD should be a 1-2 pts card not a 3pts card.

There is no contradiction. If hit, lose stealth device.

"Hit" is the term which describes hit dice not cancelled by evade dice. So someone can roll hits on a stealth device all day long, and you would not discard it until one of those hit results actually connects (isn't evaded).

Now you loose the device if your hit by an attack but this doesn't state weather its a shield hit or a hull hit, now my understanding is that your shields protect your ship and this would also include the stealth device so what's the point of a shield if it cant protect the device, The FAQ needs updating and the Stealth device rule should be changed to "If the Hull is hit by a attack" other wise you loose a shield and a stealth device. Come on make it a bit more real FFG. if not then the SD should be a 1-2 pts card not a 3pts card.

A asteroid is rock and bounces of your shields, a primary or secondary weapon is electronicly charged and has to be dissipated somehow and can be fine tunned into a frequency that allows damage to the stealth device ie feedback.

If the stealth was kept until shields were damaged you would put them on vader for example and have shields 4 green dice plus a focus and evade. Good luck with that.

Ok This stealth device is getting a bit of a headache as it contradicts its self and its ruling.

Now you loose the device if your hit by an attack but this doesn't state weather its a shield hit or a hull hit, now my understanding is that your shields protect your ship and this would also include the stealth device so what's the point of a shield if it cant protect the device, The FAQ needs updating and the Stealth device rule should be changed to "If the Hull is hit by a attack" other wise you loose a shield and a stealth device. Come on make it a bit more real FFG. if not then the SD should be a 1-2 pts card not a 3pts card.

As so many others have already stated; there is no contradictions or reasons to be confused.

1: Being "Hit" is clearly defined in subphase 6 in an Attack (see page 12 second column)

6. C ompare R esults

During this step, players compare their dice results

to determine whether the defender was hit .

To determine whether the defender was hit, compare

the number of [Hit], [Crit], and [Evade] results in the common

area. For each [Evade] result, cancel (remove) one [Hit] or [Crit]

result from the attack roll. All [Hit] results must be

canceled before any [Crit] results may be canceled.

If there is at least one uncanceled [Hit] or [Crit] result

remaining, the defender is considered hit (see page

13). If all [Hit] and [Crit] result are canceled, the attack

misses and the defender does not suffer any damage.

2: Since you don't roll any Defense Dice on neithe Bombs, Mines, "Splash Damaage" or Asteroides, SD doesn't come into play and wil thus not be affected/lost

2: Since you don't roll any Defense Dice on neithe Bombs, Mines, "Splash Damaage" or Asteroides, SD doesn't come into play and wil thus not be affected/lost

It's actually even more simple than that. Even if any of those things allowed a defense dice roll as well (or if there were some upgrade that allowed it), you still wouldn't lose Stealth Device to damage from those sources. In order to be Hit, you first must be the target of an attack. None of those damage sources involve being the target of an attack so none of them result in being Hit.

Bazinga, it's kinda like you didn't read what anyone wrote in here.

You can kind of think of it as a successful attack (and ONLY an attack) not so much damaging your stealth device as the enemy's target computer 'solving' it. The enemy countermeasures finally overcame your stealth device spoofing them, locked on to your emissions or engine signature or something that allows them to ignore it, and they upload that information to their allies, negating its effect.

Whereas if you crash into a rock or get caught in the edge of a mine, it damages you, but doesn't do anything to help them overcome your jamming.

So personally, I just envision it less as them literally shooting your stealth device off (figuratively speaking and more as someone finally overcoming your ECM and sharing that info with their allied ships.

Err, exactly as StevenO said above. Sorry!

No problem CrookedWookie as I was already considering repeating that exact statement anyway.

It baffles me why some people can't seem to accept such an easy concept that explains why a ship "loses" the Stealth Device when hit by an attack. There are plenty of other abilities in the game that really don't make sense if you believe that a ship should be allowed to hold on to it's Stealth Device although it is being successfully attacked.

What's weird to me is how some people are fine with certain abstractions in the game but then just canNOT wrap their heads around a less literal interpretation of other game concepts. Nobody complains Chewie is hurling himself out an airlock and into the way of incoming fire, but demand to know if Vader is force choking someone on another ship or chucking his lightsaber out a window at you or HOW his crew ability works.

I mean if you're going to gripe about Stealth Device, gripe about something novel - like the fact that in Empire they claim no ship as small as the Falcon can have a cloaking device. Or is that different than a stealth device? And if so, are we ever going to see a cloaking device? But if they are the same thing, why is it the Falcon is too small to have one but a TIE fighter or A-wing can equip one? And why would the Empire use them if they're too cheap to put SHIELDS on a TIE?

These are the burning questions that should be keeping you up nights. Not 'why don't I lose my stealth device if I bang into a rock.'

Cloaking devices and Stealth Devices are two different things. At least according to the EU, a cloaking device is a true invisibility field, with the nasty side effect that you can't see out of it, either.

A stealth or cloak device if you want to get technical should only work if you lower your energy output. You can't be stealthy or invisible if there is a big ball off energy the enemy can spot on sensors.

Which means you can't use sheilds so the hit should be against the hull. But as this is a game and not real world physics it just dont work that way.

A tie can be stealthy by changing its colour reducing engine noise etc

Having a cloak on a tie would be possible the power needed and size of the cloak itself.

If it bothers you that much, here's an explanation from someone (me) who is an engineering student and can come up with reasonably technically accurate explanations for Star Wars phenomena:

Assume the Stealth Device is connected to the hull by bracing of some sort, but it is a very sensitive system (sort of like my car's CD player, which seems to think every pothole and railroad track is an excuse to skip, but I digress . . .). Also assume that Star Wars energy weapons are mostly KE-based, which is evident in the fact that they have significant recoil and cause ships which are hit with them to shake and possibly be knocked off-course.

The way shields have to work in order to make any sense is they transfer the kinetic energy (KE) carried by the weapon bolt from their contact surface to the hull through the brackets that the shield projector is mounted to the hull with. Otherwise they must radiate it somehow into space, which would be visible as an aura of thermal energy around the ship. It would have to be visible, since thermal energy of the calculated magnitude of Star Wars weaponry is more than enough to cause incandescence through electron conversion to photons*. This never happens in any Star Wars movie. Additionally, if they didn't transfer it directly to the hull, the ships would never move when struck, so I conclude this is how their shields work. This energy is therefore spread throughout the hull, which greatly minimizes the damage it causes (though it can cause damage to the shield generator itself, thus eliminating some of its effectiveness). But because the Stealth Device is connected to the hull, it still experiences a bit of energy from the attack anyway, probably in the form of a vibration. This vibration is enough to knock it out of whack, and thus disable the device.

I think then that regardless of how you approach it, there's no reason you can't damage the Stealth Device while still being fully shielded.

(* if someone has a problem with the physics, keep in mind we have no idea what shields are "made out of" so we can't be sure they *wouldn't* release photons somehow despite the lack of atoms)

For the record, my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek when I was quoting Empire and the reference to cloaking devices as being something more legitimate to argue about than the logic of what causes you to lose Stealth Device. The intent was to simply point out how it was kind of goofy to pick that one thing and get hung up on the "logic" behind what is obviously a pure issue of game balance - and that there are a ton of other weird game things that don't follow any kind of 'real world logic' that people are totally fine with. The intent was not to spark an actual debate on the physics of a cloaking or stealth device.