I only got my Deathwatch book yesterday, and I'm slowly going through reading things, and then searching the forums for answers to any questions I have, but couldn't personally find the answer to these 2:

1. Artificer Armour is always described as being 'Master-Crafted'. Does this mean it has an additional +1 AP to all locations as per Master-Crafted rules, or is this already incorporated into the stats for Artificer Armour?

2. Chaos Space Marines are given an effective SB of 14. This makes sense if you assume somehow every 'standard' Chaos Marine somehow has Strength 65 before Power Armour ((6 x 2) + 2 = 14), but then at the end (or at least in a side-box), it describes that all profiles have already taken into account traits, talents and other modifiers, so then the SB should only be 10 ((4 x 2) + 2 = 10). Which should I be using? I'm inclined to say the second but just checking.

1. I believe a number of people have sent this to FFG and we await a response.

2. The CSM profile is incorrect in it's Str Bonus. I think the 14 was taken from the value provided for their Astartes Chainsword attack or they forgot Power armor applies after Unnatural Str.

Using the Chainsword theory implies they have a base SB of 11, which also doesn't quite jive with the listed Str of 65. I'd just assume they have a SB of 11 and their Str should be 75, implying they essentially have the +10 Str armor history. Either than or you have to reduce their melee damage by 1.

These CSM have higher strength than normal marines, I assume. Strength 65 should be correct. They have more wounds too after all. Some kind of dark blessing, I guess.

Alex

ak-73 said:

**** Chaos worshipers. The only army in the TT game that would give me a moment of pause before I engaged them.

SpawnoChaos said:

I have found Chaos to be a noteworthy threat in about all GW games.

Alex

1. Probably already master-crafted as listed due to the encumberance listed for it in the table.

The sample Chaos Space Marine in the book is described as being an "elite"-type, not a standard grunt CSM, who's stats would be pretty much the same as a standard Space Marine.

ak-73 said:

The issue with this interpretation is that a.) then the chainsword damage is wrong. b.) their listed strength in the characteristic chart should then be 85.

Considering that they typically add all the bonuses in so you don't have to worry to much about what gear they are using, ignoring the the +20 Str from power armor in the profile seems like a mistake.

Regardless of the interpretation, something in their listing needs to change.

Adeptus-B said:

I could be wrong about this, but I think that the "Elite" designation is there just so that you realize that a Chaos Space Marine is not a standard Troop type, and therefore should not be fielded as a Horde.

I think that they could have made the Chaos Space Marines MUCH worse than they are as written.

Regarding the CSM profile it's either:

1. There's an error in the Strength bonus and it should be 10 like it is for regular SMs.

2. There's an error in the Unnatural Strength trait and it should be Unnatural Strength (x3), which would be the correct trait for the stated strength bonus.

I think it's most likely that reason #2 is the underlying cause. As coming up with 14 out of the blue does seem a bit weird. Whereas if they copied the SM profile the author could have easily forgotten to change the Unnatural Strength to (x3) instead of (x2).

Lexicanum said:

Accounting for armour (the bonus for which is applied after Unnatural Strength), the bonus for a Strength 60 Marine is 14 (6 doubled, then +2 for armour on top), just as the Strength Bonus for a starting, average, Deathwatch character is 10 (4 doubled, +2 for armour). It appears that the weapon damage values listed in the Chaos Marine profile are incorrect, as it's actually impossible for both an Astartes Chainsword and an Astartes Combat Blade to both deal 1d10+14 damage in the hands of a SB14 character, and thus the Combat Blade should be 1d10+16 R, Pen 2, while the Chainsword is 1d10+17 R, Pen 4, Balanced, Tearing.

At least, that's the way I see it. Afterall, the armour granted it's normal +20 bonus to all the sample characters in the Final Sanction, but they were only ever listed with their basic Strength.

You're right there's a 3rd way I forgot to take into account: the strength characteristics is wrong and should be 85 (since creature profiles include all effective bonuses).

I find that highly unlikely, however, as that would be incredibly overpowered. Unnatural Strength advances are within the reach of a regular SM so having the CSM stated as Unnatural Strength (x3) seems less of an imbalance than giving him a full +20 strength advantage over his loyalist peers. Never mind what would happen if that CSM were to gain an Unnatural Strength (x3) trait, which once again would not be unrealistic.

Not to say I don't think a CSM couldn't have a 65 strength characteristic. I'm pretty sure a Champion of Khorne could easily accomplish that. I'm just not that comfortable with a run-of-the-mill CSM having such a high characteristic value. Hence it makes more sense to me that they just have a high Unnatural Strength, which to me even thematically makes more sense, as they most likely got that bonus through unnatural means.

Lexicanum said:

A strength score in the 60s is achievable for a player character - assuming an average starting strength, it takes all four Strength advances to reach Strength 61, three if you're a Strength-inclined Ultramarine or a Storm Warden. I fail to see how an Chaos Marine being within the normal range of possible scores as a loyalist Marine is inappropriate in any way...

I see no reason why a generic chaos space marine would be any stronger than a regular space marine, especially to the tune of an over 20 point difference. Fluffwise, do we really want to imply that almost ANY Space Marine from ANY chapter would lose in an arm wrestling contest to even the lowest-ranked CSM around?

No-1_J3r3: I wouldn't have a problem with your average CSM having characteristic scores that are above the average available to Deathwatch characters. I do find it very, very inappropriate that every single CSM, which in fluff are in capability considered roughly equal to their Imperium counterparts, are given a Strength characteristic so high that even the average veteran SM (Rank 1 Deathwatch ARE veterans, after all) would be hard-pressed to match it, let alone exceed it. If that Chaos SM was a Khorne follower of some clout? If the SM had been physically warped while in service to his new masters? Sure. If it was the CSM's Willpower/Intelligence/Fellowship characteristics that were through the rough (a much closer representation of "leadership", where CSM's long lives might be a boon), I wouldn't disagree.

But no... every single chaos space marine as statted makes almost every Space Marine in-universe look like a 98 lb weakling, and are only matched by the Strongest veterans of the strongest chapters. That really doesn't bother you?

Has anyone sent this question to the developers to get their take on it?

Unusualsuspect said:

At this point, I'd like to expose a fallacy.

Every character is an individual - NPCs are people too - and it would be foolish to assume that every example of a given type of character will be identical in any way. You cannot define every Chaos Space Marine by a single stat-block; it's an example (in part a concession to space, or lack thereof), rather than an absolute statement of their nature.

This unnamed and unknown Chaos Space Marine has that particular arrangement of characteristics, skills, talents, traits and equipment. There is no reason whatsoever, except possibly a wargame-inspired mindset that suggests that all creatures of the same arbitrary classification be the same in mechanical terms, to assume that any other Chaos Space Marine will have those stats.

So no, it doesn't bother me that this particular statblock says something which some people consider inappropriate, as I really don't care what that single statblock contains. I've written up a few Chaos Marine statblocks in my time, without the aid of the Deathwatch rules, dealing with named individuals instead of generic examples, so I'm more than certain that I can do it again whenever I need to.

I guess my point would be that the representative statblock for a creature - the deviations of which are, as always, up to the DM - should be a good starting point for any deviation, and shouldn't represent a deviation as the "starting point".

No one here is denying that a CSM with Str 60+ or with Unnat Str (x3) might exist. What we're annoyed by is a statistic that is inappropriate to use as a baseline. It just seems to be a very poor choice to make a generic statblock represent something other than an average of what it represents (and by all accounts, SB 6+ folk are quite rare, even amongst the Deathwatch).

I just don't consider it a fallacy to assume a generic statblock represents the average, rather than an unusual, member of its type.

Edit: This would be a different story if we were discussing, say, the statblock for the Alpha+ "Burning Princess", which is by definition a unique statblock, and thus should absolutely represent the subject's particular quirks.

I'm aligned with Unusualsuspect's line of thinking. For me the stat blocks in the Adversaries section should describe generic, unnamed npc's that are in theory representative of that unit type in the WH40k universe. In other words if I were to take a random sampling of every single CSM and after sufficient samples I should expect their stats to align pretty closely to what's presented in the Chaos Space Marine stat block. From what's been presented that doesn't feel like it's the case.

So yes, a DW SM can reach 65 in strength, but they would be reaching the limit of what's possible for them. Yet the CSM average score is at the zenith of the SM's characteristics. Maybe the CSM's really are that badass, I honestly am no expert in them. I know they are fearsome melee fighters and they have received gifts from their Dark Gods, but the 20 point difference means that for a CSM hitting a SM is a routine task. It would also stand to reason then that there are CSM that have 75 or 85 raw strength, since 65 is just the baseline average. Even a Demon Prince is no match for naked CSM in the strength department, one of these uber CSM with Power Armour would stand at 105 strength!

I don't know that seems too big of a gap, at least for me personally it feels that way.

Lexicanum said:

You did notice that the CSM has 29 wound points? In my estimation FFG's interpretation is that the average Chaos Space Marine has a light advantage over his loyalist counterpart.

Alex

ak-73 said:

This is also my interpretation. They make them "slightly" better than their Loyalist counterparts to demonstrate how dangerous a threat Chaos truly is.

So they might have a few wounds over a starting Deathwatch Marine, but I personally still think that a base strength of 65 is a little over the top. I probably should have just e-mailed this question to FFG or something. I wish one of the developers would answer.

Email the question, and one will. FFG is one of the best companies I've seen when it comes to answering rules (and the source of answers - most answering services are run by Customer Service employees rather than actual Devs).

It seems fairly clear to me that the weapon damages are just wrong (Combat knife should be 1d10+16 while chainsword should be 1d10+17) while the Strength bonus is correct (6 TB x 2 Unnatural Toughness + 2 for power armour), giving a total of 14. Fantasy Flight has clearly gone for the "Chaos Space Marines are veterans of hundreds or even thousands of years of combat and so are better than SMs" route (also demonstrated by the better than standard WS and BS, though much less pronounced in that case).

Basically, there is nothing incorrect about the 14 SB for the CSM. He is meant to be better than a starting Space Marine.

Just a thought on the OP's first question:

Artificer armour can only be purchased through signature wargear. As present, no signature wargear talent exists to offer enough requisition to allow for the purchase of "mastercraft" artificer armour (if it even exists).

If artificer armour already is "mastercraft," then yes, its +1 AP stats would already be calculated in (as this is done in pretty much every other item entry in the book, such as the damage codes for relics, or the total damage of an enemies melee attack, and how it already has strength totaled in).

The real question to ask, is if regular power armour can be made mastercrafted. Or scout armour. As these lack a req cost, so its difficult to be sure. It could possibly be just accessible when the characters hit the proper renown level, but that just seems like an abstract "here's something better for no real reason."

Also, with power armour, there is the argument that artificer armour is in fact masterwork power armour. In which case, why even have the blurb on armour qualities? Basically, that means the only armour that can with certainty be improved in quality would be terminator armour for sure (pretty sure it is not MC by default), as there still would be questions about MC scout armour.

And what marine is going to wear flak/carapace armour? I mean, sure, there might be a need to go discreetly, but in those cases, scout armour would do the trick. Besides, these also have 0 req, so they are in the same boat as scout armour.

I mean, I guess it would be there for consideration with NPCs, but really, their armour is whatever the GM deems necessary (ref. the GM fiat armour from Paranoia, that stuff was awesome).