As my understanding of the rules go, the above statement is true. For two reasons:

1. If the enemy has a 'contain' defense token, they can nullify the additional impact of the default critical effect, completely. 'Contain', on the other hand, has no impact on APT at all. (Unless the enemy took a Damage Control Officer, anyway)
2. Even when hitting a 'down' shield - the default critical effect does not (usually) add any damage to the attack. It merely converts what would be one face-down damage card into a face-up damage card. In contrast, APT adds a face-up damage card to the attack results, which is a net increase in the total damage done.

So I believe those two things are true, which validates the thread subject statement. Curious if I'm missing something, or if I've made a mistake with either of the above items.

(In which case, from curiosity - is there ever any reason, if you have brought along APT and roll a black crit, to not trigger APT instead of the default crit?)

True.

XX-9 shooting down shields could be more interesting in some situations. It does definitely playing precision strike

Yes, APT is strictly better than the default crit. There is never a time that it's worse.

The only scenario I've ever been able to come up with where an argument could be made for the default crit over APT is if, for some reason, you were trying to entice your opponent to burn Contain and he didn't have DCO. Pretty tenuous scenario, and not one I've ever run into, but it's... conceivable.

Generally speaking, though, it's a pretty safe assumption that there is no scenario in which you would want to take the default crit over an APT proc, given the choice between the two.

I mean, that's why you paid 5 points and an Ordnance Slot, right?

To be strictly better than the Default Crit?

I mean. Sure. Imagine if you did, and lo and behold, you weren't... You'd be pissed

Just now, Drasnighta said:

I mean, that's why you paid 5 points and an Ordnance Slot, right?

To be strictly better than the Default Crit?

I mean. Sure. Imagine if you did, and lo and behold, you weren't... You'd be pissed

Well... sort of. Almost every other special crit effect is only situationally better than the default. Only XX-9 is similarly strictly better than the default. Even ACM isn't necessarily optimal if you have a secondary reason for wanting that single faceup rather than two facedown/shield damage (Dodonna, Precision Strike).

Just now, Ardaedhel said:

Well... sort of. Almost every other special crit effect is only situationally better than the default. Only XX-9 is similarly strictly better than the default. Even ACM isn't necessarily optimal if you have a secondary reason for wanting that single faceup rather than two facedown/shield damage (Dodonna, Precision Strike).

I meant in the strictest terms.

5 Points and an Ordnance Slot.

ACM can be situationally better, but its irrelevant, as its, y'know... 7 points and an Ordnance Slot.

XX9s are 5 Points, but a Turbolaser slot


...

I apologise. Some of the posts on the main forum have made me especially pedantic... Or rather, turning it up 3000% here.

Hmmm....Giving someone else Veteran in your CC fleet? That's the only other reason I could think of.

Bring a fire control team and go for two! ?

12 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

Yes, APT is strictly better than the default crit. There is never a time that it's worse.

The only scenario I've ever been able to come up with where an argument could be made for the default crit over APT is if, for some reason, you were trying to entice your opponent to burn Contain and he didn't have DCO. Pretty tenuous scenario, and not one I've ever run into, but it's... conceivable.

Generally speaking, though, it's a pretty safe assumption that there is no scenario in which you would want to take the default crit over an APT proc, given the choice between the two.

Agreed. So let's see what other niche situations we can think of when the default trumps APT!

12 hours ago, Card Knight said:

Hmmm....Giving someone else Veteran in your CC fleet? That's the only other reason I could think of.

Love it! Great thinking outside the tournament box!

Another one I've not actually run into but is conceivable....where the extra damage card would be the difference between the target surviving or blowing up, and you really, really want your ship to be held in place by the overlap that would result from hitting the still living ship?

3 hours ago, Flengin said:

Another one I've not actually run into but is conceivable....where the extra damage card would be the difference between the target surviving or blowing up, and you really, really want your ship to be held in place by the overlap that would result from hitting the still living ship?

Yes, that or if you're playing Superior Positions and you don't want to destroy it yet to be able to make another attack to the rear hull zone of a ship for an extra victory token.

19 hours ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

Yes, that or if you're playing Superior Positions and you don't want to destroy it yet to be able to make another attack to the rear hull zone of a ship for an extra victory token.

Nice! Hadn't thought of that one! Precision strike could well do something similar.

No, Precision Strike is widely regarded to be the same either way.

Use APT = 1 Token for 1 Card Dealt Face Up. It just happens to be dealt on its own.
Use Default Crit = 1 Token for 1 Card Dealt Face up. It just happens to be the first.

Of course, that can be argued too, with other rules advice given, without an FAQ.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

No, Precision Strike is widely regarded to be the same either way.

Use APT = 1 Token for 1 Card Dealt Face Up. It just happens to be dealt on its own.
Use Default Crit = 1 Token for 1 Card Dealt Face up. It just happens to be the first.

Of course, that can be argued too, with other rules advice given, without an FAQ.

I think he meant that as long as APT deals an "extra" damage you could trigger the default crit for the same result (15pts) but keep the target alive with hull enough to suffer another face up damage card from another attack adding 15 extra.

2 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I think he meant that as long as APT deals an "extra" damage you could trigger the default crit for the same result (15pts) but keep the target alive with hull enough to suffer another face up damage card from another attack adding 15 extra.

Sure, I guess. Shoot at something and want to keep it alive for something else to kill it... That's not an awkward scenario at all.

12 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Sure, I guess. Shoot at something and want to keep it alive for something else to kill it... That's not an awkward scenario at all.

Totally!

Awkward? Yep.

Niche? Yep.

Conceivable ? By definition, I guess so.

Would I ever actually do it? Almost certainly not!

So two more shield damage are better than the effects of a face-up damage card?

17 minutes ago, ShoutingMan said:

So two more shield damage are better than the effects of a face-up damage card?

It depends.
Two shield damage are two damage. APT is only one more damage (2>1). But it matters how often you are able to hit with it to become effective.

With the ACM you can nearly negate the opponents redirect token, if you are able to attack 2-3 times.
But if you attack only once, you deal only two damage on the shields, that might not even matter. In this case the APT might have been better. But attacking 3 times, with 3 damage on each shield side, totally kills the enemy.

1 hour ago, Tokra said:

It depends.
Two shield damage are two damage. APT is only one more damage (2>1). But it matters how often you are able to hit with it to become effective.

With the ACM you can nearly negate the opponents redirect token, if you are able to attack 2-3 times.
But if you attack only once, you deal only two damage on the shields, that might not even matter. In this case the APT might have been better. But attacking 3 times, with 3 damage on each shield side, totally kills the enemy.

Sorry, I don't quite follow. I'm thinking of the simple case:

Attack on ship hull zone with zero shields. Its adjacent zones have shield remaining. Attack is successful with black critical and an APT critical option. The defender will take take face down card. Is it better to use APT to deal reduce the adjacent shields by one each or to have that card deal face up and the defender suffer those knock-on effects?

If the adjacent shields are also zero, it seems that dealing a total of three face down cards is better than one face up card. But if not, what's the value of further nibbling away at shields versus the sometimes very challenge effects -- such as halved Engineering points -- from a face up card?

1 minute ago, ShoutingMan said:

Sorry, I don't quite follow. I'm thinking of the simple case:

Attack on ship hull zone with zero shields. Its adjacent zones have shield remaining. Attack is successful with black critical and an APT critical option. The defender will take take face down card. Is it better to use APT to deal reduce the adjacent shields by one each or to have that card deal face up and the defender suffer those knock-on effects?

Are you sure you're taking about APT and not ACM here?

1 hour ago, Ardaedhel said:

Are you sure you're taking about APT and not ACM here?

That might be! My apologies.

Just now, ShoutingMan said:

That might be! My apologies.

No worries, my shouting dude.

In CC you might do it to let another ship get the kill for the veteran token...

You might also do it in a superior positions if you have another rear shot to farm another token..

That is about the only time I can think of doing that..