What are the thoughts of one vs. the other, and when you'd want one over the other?

Right now, it seems to me in the world of XI7 where no one redirects anyways, APT is better. However, if your main gunship takes the HTT/SW7 combo (as I've been trying), ACMs might be better just for sheer damage output since there's a point at which bracing for 1 pt isn't really worth it.

I keep going back and forth on them and which ones to put on my close range ships.

Thoughts?

Its very tricky.

It depends on wether you are expecting on doing Spike Damage, or Spatter Damage...

Spike Damage is where you, effectively, try to core through a single shield facing and deal as much damage to the hull immediately... It has the benefit that if you are able to have a couple of Spike dealers hit the same Zone, you push more damage through. The drawback is, you a generally either taking something to mitigate tokens (XI7) or you are at the Mercy of both Enemy Tokens and Enemy Maneuver.

Spatter Damage is generally a lot of low damage sources that are, individually, easy to deal with but tend to add up... If you are more concerned with just putting as much damage onto an enemy, and it doesn't matter where (because you are surrounding it, usually with Squadrons) to be able to layer damage on from any direction - its slower, but its less at the whim of enemy maneuver, and only so many attacks can be braced/redirected before tokens run out.

APTs generally help the Spike Damage build. Its one solid, virtually guaranteed Damage that hits the hull... One more for the Spike.

ACMs generally help with the Spatter Damage build - because you're more interested in overall damage being done, 2 Guaranteed Damage is better than 1 Guaranteed Damage - especially when you are still considering what to follow-up with...

It's a question of your meta and your opponents, so far as I'm concerned. Assuming you crit, the upsides and downsides are...

ACMS:

• 2 guaranteed damage per crit, done to the surrounding hull zones
• Better against ships with multiple Redirect tokens as you'll burn through shields rapidly, making the Redirects worthless and/or the rarely-seen Advanced Projectors (for the same reason)
• Better against larger ships, which will have 1-2 Redirects. All large ships have 2.
• Downside is you won't be flipping any face-up cards on enemy ships (unless you default to the generic crit), but 2 guaranteed damage is effectively a Structural Damage (+1 more damage card) crit over and over, just applied to the side hull zones
• Generally better with a raw damage focus, as the splash damage to the side shields rewards you for stripping the shields rapidly to pour tons of damage through. Once the enemy shields are depleted and their Redirects are less useful, XI7s and Heavy Turbolaser Turrets don't really do much any more.
  • The exception is if your splash damage depletes the shielding on a facing that you will be attacking later with fancy XI7s/HTTs.
  • Also seems to synergize better with Intel Officer, as wiping the Brace and rendering Redirects (near-)useless makes enemy ships vanish rapidly against ACMs.

APTs:

• 1 guaranteed damage straight to the hull per crit which has the potential to be a sweet crit effect, or potentially something that effectively does nothing extra
• Better against smaller ships that have less hull points to spare and lower Engineering values, so repairing damage is difficult
• Better against ships with no Redirect tokens (Raiders, Nebulon-Bs) as you're not wasting splash damage on side shields that weren't going to come into play anyways
• 2 points cheaper
• Has synergy with Engine Techs (between double-arcs and double-rams, you can do 4 guaranteed damage to the hull)
• Has synergy with XI7s/HTTS provided you're attacking the same depleted hull zone as the follow-up attacks

I think you can really make a good argument for either and it would depend more on your fleet composition as well as what you expect to face. Given that they work at cross-purposes (APTs ignore shields, ACMs eat shields for breakfast before blowing you up spectacularly) I would definitely recommend not mixing the two in a given fleet, though.

Between Dras and Snipa I feel like everything that needs to be said has been said.

A lot of personal Opinion here:

I'll be honest... A lot of the time, I think this is an Imperial dilemma... They are often taking at least one, maybe 2 ships that have the Ordinance Slot open - because one of them is considered a "Must Have" 95% of the time... (Man, that was a lot of qualifiers)

And with it being an Imperial Problem, I acknowledge that I am primarily a Rebel player. I only have one ship to take it on, and frankly, its already going to end up Overpointed and Overupgraded that I often don't feel like I can spare the points on it after I add its Title and maybe Ordinance Experts...

But that being said, I feel against Imperial Ships, I do more Shield Damage... I'd love to punch through to the Hull and lay hull damage on, but being unable to pack multiple "massive hits" in, in a short band of time, I have to rely on Squadron Spatter and Long Range Spatter to wear them down...

Its disheartening to put a Crit on the Hull, barely get through shields, and see that Crit disappear on engineering next turn, when you're out of range and in your Zoidberg mode...

So yeah, if I'm doing it, as a Rebel player, I'm defaulting to ACMs. Weaken the shields all around, so Squadrons can help out... and if Squadrons have already stripped shields, its 2 extra damage labelled on...

Dras/regarding the MC30:

When it comes to MC30s, I'd generally only recommend the APTs if you're running Dodonna. The general profile of the ACMs makes them better against generic Imperial ships (star destroyers) that most Imperials are running.*

My Rebel buddy and I have found that Expanded Launchers on an MC30 Torp Frigate seems to be superior to crit-dependent upgrades if only because it makes double-arcing (speed 3, with the 2-click maneuver at the end) with the MC30 particularly vicious. 4 black + 1 blue and then 3 black + 2 blue = ouch. Particularly with the mandatory Ordnance Experts.

*Although with all the Assault Frigate Ackbar spam we see nowadays, I think it may be paradoxically safe to say that Rebels are more reliably bringing medium+large ships than Imperials...

If they take ECMs, ACM will basically do better against large ships. Very rarely/not consistently enough in this game does a crit turn up that really turns the tide of the battle.

Also, if they don't have shields, those 2 damage become literally 2 extra damage cards. SWEET.

If they take ECMs, ACM will basically do better against large ships. Very rarely/not consistently enough in this game does a crit turn up that really turns the tide of the battle.

Also, if they don't have shields, those 2 damage become literally 2 extra damage cards. SWEET.

I think for what I'm going for (lots of activations, lots of black dice, Screed) the ACMs work better. Finding a way to negate the usefulness of Redirects (which are in heavy play between MC30s, MC80s, and AF2s) seems more helpful than face-ups if I can't punch through the shields.

So long as I'm thinking of it, I figure this is as good a place as any to post a link to a guide I wrote up on Boardgamegeek for getting your small black dice ships to work. Hopefully some of the newer guys find it helpful. You'll have to forgive the gimmicky dice bullet points - I write explanatory best in an outline format and BGG doesn't support bullet points.

To me the Mc30 torpedo and APT were made for each other. I always put that and ordnance techs together and it almost guaranties a face up damage for every broadside.

ACM are slightly better. I'll always start with APT on a Demo and if I get to the end with a couple to spare I'll upgrade.

Yeah, this topic definitely has the pro and cons of both upgrades covered, but hey, I'll ad my opinions anyway!

I've been on a roller coaster about this topic. Wave 2 hit and it was all APTs for me, ACMs disappeared as I was enamored with the crit through shields! The 2 point savings, sometimes over multiple ships (if I'm playing IMPs) was also very nice. However, as time went on I began to see several of the trends aforementioned by other posters here.

In my Rebel fleets, I like running multiple activations which usually means TRC90s, and one, maybe two MC30s. I found that TRC90s resulted in multiple attacks that ISDs and MC80s would be able to redirect, meaning my final target would die with no shields left, which I am fine with, TRC90s still burn things down very quickly. But this prompted me to start looking at ACMs again for my MC30s. Less shields meant more damage, and since I've made the change I've had several situations where the ACM extra damage made the difference and finished off an ISD, keeping it from another activation. If I have Dodonna, I'll still choose APT, since that utility is too great to pass up, but otherwise I'm using ACM.

I play IMPs much less, but I'm still on the fence on which to use. The lower hull sizes of Rebel ships, means the APTs are that much more effective, while the ACMs seem to do less overall. Especially if my heavy hitter ships are using XI7. If I'm rolling with several Gladiators/Raiders it really depends on points and my battle plans as to which I use. If I'm bringing squadrons though, I shift heavily back to ACM, since the squadron damage tends to get spread out to shields.

In both cases above I also have to be aware of mirror matches, which sometimes makes me which I had chosen differently, but since it comes down to fleet purpose and battle plan more then matchup, those cases are rare. So that's really my final takeaway. Both upgrades are solid, and I don't think one is better than the other. It all comes down to how you plan to use your fleet, and what you need to effectively destroy the enemy.

I only play and buy Imperials, and therefore don't have access to the APTs to begin with. Maybe someday when they come in an Imperial expansion or as an alt-art prize, I'll start using them.

With that given, I do really like the ACM Gladiators. As the posters above said, You're a little less dependent on the damage deck and your opponent's maneuvering decisions, and can splatter damage into you opponent, making them less able to use those redirects.

With apt on a demolisher + engine tech, you can reliably do 5-6 damage cards (three face up) BEFORE even resolving any actual damage points from the 10 black and 2 red....

APT all day....

I only play and buy Imperials, and therefore don't have access to the APTs to begin with. Maybe someday when they come in an Imperial expansion or as an alt-art prize, I'll start using them.

With that given, I do really like the ACM Gladiators. As the posters above said, You're a little less dependent on the damage deck and your opponent's maneuvering decisions, and can splatter damage into you opponent, making them less able to use those redirects.

You can always buy the cards on Ebay. I can't say it's what I like to do, but I do it for the cards I need

I only play and buy Imperials, and therefore don't have access to the APTs to begin with. Maybe someday when they come in an Imperial expansion or as an alt-art prize, I'll start using them.

With that given, I do really like the ACM Gladiators. As the posters above said, You're a little less dependent on the damage deck and your opponent's maneuvering decisions, and can splatter damage into you opponent, making them less able to use those redirects.

You can always buy the cards on Ebay. I can't say it's what I like to do, but I do it for the cards I need

That's true, but then I wonder what constitutes 'need'.

If there's reasonable debate that the cost-effectiveness of ACMs and APTs is fairly equivalent, then why shouldn't I just stick with ACMs and save the $10?

I find APT to be highly subjective, they are awesome for killing small ships, and potentially crippling to medium ships, but they just don't cut the mustard for large ships.

Running a 5 ship Imperial fleet, standard doctrine is your ships get one round at PBR double arc, so shooting a Corvette, Nebulon, Raider, Gladiator, MC30, APT's will do the job you need them to, but ACM will do the same job.

Against AF, VSD, MC80, ISD, these things have a ton of shields, def tokens, and HP's, so apart from a triple tap from your Demolisher, your going to need to hit them twice minimum, meaning two ships, 2 double arcs from Raiders with APTs is 4 extra damage, but it is 8 extra damage with ACM's, I have found the first ship (ACM) will strip all shields from 3 facings, and possibly do 1-2 damage, then the next ship will destroy it's target with its ACM double arc.

Usually a Raider with OE, and Screed will net you, front arc 5 damage +2 damage from ACM, then 4 damage +2 damage from ACM(Conc fire for +1 black dice), and that is very high odds of success with that combo, meaning you can easily work out just how many times you need to hit something, APT's rely to much on random chance on which damage cards you draw against large ships.

Where APT shine is in conjunction with Precision Strike, a lot of players with a heavy squadron build will have this card as their objective, and if you have 3 raiders with APT's you can rack up an unholy amount of tokens with it, ACM's will get you some, but no where near as many as the APT's will. So if you play in an area with heavy squadron meta, these things are worth their weight in gold.

APT + Jan Dodanna is the crit fisher's wet dream. As long as I roll 1 black crit I'm doing a face up damage - shields be damned, and I get to pick the worst possible of 4, even if that's just a structural damage. Remember the crit from APT happens before defense tokens get used, so you could get shield failure and turn off that redirect completely anyway. I agree with the Eastern King about the scaleability of ACM. I generally like them better. But APT can be pretty brutal too.

APT + Jan Dodanna is the crit fisher's wet dream. As long as I roll 1 black crit I'm doing a face up damage - shields be damned, and I get to pick the worst possible of 4, even if that's just a structural damage. Remember the crit from APT happens before defense tokens get used, so you could get shield failure and turn off that redirect completely anyway. I agree with the Eastern King about the scaleability of ACM. I generally like them better. But APT can be pretty brutal too.

Definintely agree on Dodonna. I've been working on this build for my last couple of games and it's so satisfying to drop an MC80 to speed zero and then drop her shields right before you open up on her.

My personal flowchart:

Using Dodonna? =yes=> APT

||

no

||

Heavy bombers? =yes=> ACM

||

no

||

XI7 on everything? =yes=> APT

||

no

||

Enough points for ACM and everything else I want? =yes= > ACM

||

no

||

===> APT

Remember that ACM is a maximum of 2 extra face down damage. APT is 1 extra face up damage consistently. ACM is an enabler in the first 1/2 of the game and a finisher in the second half (in that it enables bombers) while APT is a debuffer that looks like a finisher. So I like Ardy's flowchart.

In my experience, and this has been gone over in other terms farther up this thread, the gist of the debate between APT and ACM is the purpose/style of damage your fleet, or potentially that specific ship is intended to do. My classic example, as a primarily Imperial player who dabbles in Rebels to entertain himself, is that APTs are useful for sniping attacks and for pushing through damage cards from attacks that might otherwise not do anything. ACMs, on the other hand, are useful when you need to shovel damage onto shields, knowing the other player (Rebel or Imperial) is going to try to Redirect that or follow-on large attacks. When Demolisher makes an appearance on my builds, it's always running ACMs. If it's Demolisher, the two points are worth maximizing how I will use the ship, and after accounting for things like double arcing, activation advantage etc. I would rather ensure that later in the match, more damage goes through all at once by burning multiple shield facings at once. Two successive swipes is two damage he can't Redirect away, four with AP.

By contrast, I'm apparently odd for being a huge fan of Raiders and never leaving spacedock without at least one on hand for shenanigans, usually a Raider-1. In its role as a picket, a nipping, crippling attacker, the Raider is never going to throw enough damage on its own that whittling shields with ACMs is worth it to me. That much coordination with an accompanying Star Destroyer of any variety (with the as-yet untested combination with an ET Gladiator as the notable exception) really cuts down how flexible and generally unpredictable the Raider can be, and thus its utility in my line of battle. I'd rather use APTs, get some crits to get inside my opponent's head, and otherwise nip at him. If I want anti-token support, I'll make it a Raider-2 with either SW-7s (most likely), NK-10s, or Overload Pulse, all infinitely more effective at shutting down Redirects than a single ACM hit that isn't backed up by salvo after salvo of 4+ damage. With APTs, a pair of Raiders, and a pair of rams, I can obliterate an MC30 in a single firing pass without it getting a chance to really flee or turn the tables on more than one of the two, MUCH CHEAPER, attackers. My two cents on a debate I expect to never be settled, ever.

Except a double arc from a Raider I with Screed/OE/ACM does on average 5 damage +2 unbraceable, then 4 damage + 2 unbraceable.

So to break that down, a Raider I double arc firing into a targets side :

Assault frigate, using and burning its brace and redirect, ends up with zero shields on front/side/rear and no brace/redirect

VSD using and burning its brace, and both redirects ends up with zero shields on front/side/rear 1 face down damage, no brace.

ISD using and burning its brace and both redirects ends up with zero shields on front/side/rear, no brace.

MC80 using and burning its brace and both redirects ends up with 1shield front, 1 shield side, zero rear, no brace.

From a ship that costs 55pts

So I am unsure why you think a Raider I with ACM's cannot throw enough damage to whittle down shields, hell if you put an Intel Officer on that damage goes up, because they either do not brace the first hit to keep the brace token, or they spend it and lose it, and don't get to reduce the second hit.

While I'm not disputing that the Raider CAN be effective in that role, that is not the role I have had the most success with, as I discussed above. Also, unless I sorely misunderstand the term "double arc", how on Earth is the second shot 4 damage?

While I'm not disputing that the Raider CAN be effective in that role, that is not the role I have had the most success with, as I discussed above. Also, unless I sorely misunderstand the term "double arc", how on Earth is the second shot 4 damage?

Yeah, I'm a little hung up on those damage estimates as well.

From where I'm sitting, Raider OE front arc (2blue/2black) with OE averages 4dmg, + ~70% chance of 2 ACM damage (generous estimate, assuming aggressive rerolls on the blacks which will drive your average base damage back down to the 3.5-3.75 region).

Then the side arc is 2 or 3 + ACM (burn the blue to Screed if you don't roll a natural crit).

While I'm not disputing that the Raider CAN be effective in that role, that is not the role I have had the most success with, as I discussed above. Also, unless I sorely misunderstand the term "double arc", how on Earth is the second shot 4 damage?

Yeah, I'm a little hung up on those damage estimates as well.

From where I'm sitting, Raider OE front arc (2blue/2black) with OE averages 4dmg, + ~70% chance of 2 ACM damage (generous estimate, assuming aggressive rerolls on the blacks which will drive your average base damage back down to the 3.5-3.75 region).

Then the side arc is 2 or 3 + ACM (burn the blue to Screed if you don't roll a natural crit).

Probably a ConFire for the second shot?