PDA

View Full Version : Why are humans average



dreameater
07-03-2009, 08:16
As my title says why are humans average in the warhammer world, I mean how come they the foot soldiers of the empire depend on ranks and outnumbering to win a fight, and what says that a human is able to fight with the same skill as mutant rat or slower than a maurder.

Gorbad Ironclaw
07-03-2009, 08:22
Because with us being humans it's easier to make them the baseline unit/statline in the game and then scale things from there.

If you have the baseline being something people can't really picture/relate to then you end up with a weird scale where no one really knows what's going on.

Neknoh
07-03-2009, 08:25
The untrained human baseline is three's across, this is mainly because it is a D6 system, and you said it yourself, what makes a human fight slower than a marauder but as good as a rat? Because it is your averge joe, also, the rats are FAR quicker.

Furthermore, the baseline refers to a lightly trained human, people whom are very well trained are weaponskill four, this catches both swordsmen whom are heavely training troops, and marauders whom lead lives of constant battle.


The human is average because there are weaker and meeker things out there, zombies and nightgobblins for instance, whilst there are also tonnes of stronger things in the world as well.

slingersam
07-03-2009, 08:45
Have you ever tried to defend yourself against nature.
If we were to just fight with our bare fists we would
not be able to accomplish much, yet a bear or a lion, has
some sort of strength thats far superior to ours. Try
rushing a moose and see who wins. Against nature
we would be near the bottom of the food chain, if
it were not for our technology and superior thinking
we would not be able to compete with nature.

On a separate not, its because of technology we are
so weak, if we had been able to do things naturally
and learn the normal way we would be a lot stronger.

Neknoh
07-03-2009, 08:55
Furthermore, in warhammer, we ARE augmented, remember, strength, for instance, is damage potential, a man with a sword is about as likely to kill you as an unarmed horse, where you might find bears have the same killing potential as chaos warriors or skilled heroes, not necessarily in brute strength, but in the weapons they wield and how they go about killing you.

Thommy H
07-03-2009, 09:03
Actually, in terms of strength, speed, endurance and so on, humans are much more impressive than you might think - given our size and mass, we're pretty much at the top end of the animal kingdom. Sure, there are lots of animals that can do certain things better than us (bears are stronger, cats are faster, horses are tougher, etc. etc.) but overall we're essentially super-powered compared to anything else. That's why we're the dominant species on this planet. We wiped out mammoths for Christ's sake...

But in Warhammer, as in most fantasy settings, it's necessary for the most common, average race to be something the vast majority of readers can relate to. Now, since 100% of people who play Warhammer are human beings, the baseline species is humanity. Everything else is a modification from that starting point. This is common to the point of cliché in almost every fantasy game ever made, and is not unique to Warhammer. Humans, being the same species as the author and all the readers, are just an obvious place to start with game stats.

slingersam
07-03-2009, 09:32
Actually, in terms of strength, speed, endurance and so on, humans are much more impressive than you might think - given our size and mass, we're pretty much at the top end of the animal kingdom. Sure, there are lots of animals that can do certain things better than us (bears are stronger, cats are faster, horses are tougher, etc. etc.) but overall we're essentially super-powered compared to anything else. That's why we're the dominant species on this planet. We wiped out mammoths


I'm not denying that for our size by far we are superior. Now as you
said bears are stronger but thats because they are bigger, well chaos
warriors are way bigger than regular humans. Also Mammoths were taken
down by spears, and a crap load of humans, plus rope to trip them. Do
you think we would have been just as effective if we didn't have spears
or the rope, I honestly don't think so.

Sleazy
07-03-2009, 09:41
Actually, in terms of strength, speed, endurance and so on, humans are much more impressive than you might think - given our size and mass, we're pretty much at the top end of the animal kingdom. Sure, there are lots of animals that can do certain things better than us (bears are stronger, cats are faster, horses are tougher, etc. etc.) but overall we're essentially super-powered compared to anything else. That's why we're the dominant species on this planet. We wiped out mammoths for Christ's sake...

But in Warhammer, as in most fantasy settings, it's necessary for the most common, average race to be something the vast majority of readers can relate to. Now, since 100% of people who play Warhammer are human beings, the baseline species is humanity. Everything else is a modification from that starting point. This is common to the point of cliché in almost every fantasy game ever made, and is not unique to Warhammer. Humans, being the same species as the author and all the readers, are just an obvious place to start with game stats.

good post Thommy but I'd disagree that 100% of Warhammer players are human.

Have you ever been in a GW store on a Saturday afternoon?

ehlijen
07-03-2009, 09:42
'We' did not wipe out the mammoths. That was our tougher and stronger ancestors. The modern human (as you'd find him in a 'civilsed' city these days) would not be able to survive back in those days. He'd very quickly succumb to either a disease or the environment.

Humans aren't actually built for any great bodily feats. Our legs are not built for running fast (compared to the typical predator we'd fear in the wild), the upright gait is just terrible for keeping balance while running in uneven terrain, we are not all that strong for our size, we lack any kind of useable claws or teeth for fighting and we actually have terribly dull senses.
Why are we the apparant dominant species? Because we have a brain big enough to invent things AND hands dextreous enough to build our inventions with.

But comparing man to nature isn't the point, sorry. The idea with humans being the baseline is that it's much easier to imagine something being weaker/stronger/whatever than a human, rather than saying 'it's yay strong/weak/whatever'. And setting the only familiar race to the newcomer as the baseline is just the easiest way to do it.

Toomanymind
07-03-2009, 10:38
I'm not denying that for our size by far we are superior. Now as you
said bears are stronger but thats because they are bigger, well chaos
warriors are way bigger than regular humans. Also Mammoths were taken
down by spears, and a crap load of humans, plus rope to trip them. Do
you think we would have been just as effective if we didn't have spears
or the rope, I honestly don't think so.

Would anything be effective without the very things that made it effective? :D

dreameater
07-03-2009, 12:49
actully the human body has not changed since we evolved from monkey's as we do not need to ,the animals have evolved to survive, if you took all the animals who had evoved a certain way and changed the enviroment after genrations they would not have that aspect , thats why we don't have neandathols with us to day, because humans and neandathols competed for the same food and the one who was physical stroger lost to the higher intelligence so why don't they representt this in ghe game

cytoc
07-03-2009, 12:52
'We' did not wipe out the mammoths. That was our tougher and stronger ancestors. The modern human (as you'd find him in a 'civilsed' city these days) would not be able to survive back in those days. He'd very quickly succumb to either a disease or the environment.

Humans aren't actually built for any great bodily feats. Our legs are not built for running fast (compared to the typical predator we'd fear in the wild), the upright gait is just terrible for keeping balance while running in uneven terrain, we are not all that strong for our size, we lack any kind of useable claws or teeth for fighting and we actually have terribly dull senses.
Why are we the apparant dominant species? Because we have a brain big enough to invent things AND hands dextreous enough to build our inventions with.


I'm going to have to call you on the disease front; modern humans have a very well developed immune system, due to the fact we are constantly challenged by different viruses and bacteria that have evolved since humans began living in large societies.

In fact if you took a modern human and dropped him/her way back when, the diseases they carried with them would be the problem. There's plenty of examples where european explorers have carried diseases that have decimated native populations.

And I doubt the environment would get a modern day man who was versed in survival techniques, especially a 'tribe' of such people. In fact they would probably be better off than the 'ancestors' because they would have a keener understanding of what was going on around them.


When it comes to how humans ended up top of the food chain, it boils down to the ability to build and utilise tools and to work in true teams; specifically with high level communication and planning. There is obviously a lot of give and take, for instance we have an upright gait, which loses us the ability to move as quickly, or potentially with as much agility, however it frees up our hands to do other things, etc.

Pokpoko
07-03-2009, 12:54
We did not wipe out the mammoths. That theory is outdated, and simply does not fit with the current data-it was a mix of circumstances, mostly the changing climate, that off the woolies-humans simply were too few and far between back then to do so.We might have killed them off in some places, but not everywhere in the world.

Back to fantasy-humans are the avarage,simply because it's so much easier to say "elf is faster than the human" as we know how fast a human is. It's all a bit lazy on the author's side,really, and since the public loves the underdog, it makes identifying with the human characters so much easier.If humans were faster, stronger and better armed than the elves and dwarves and all the rest, it'be hard to make the reader(or player) identify himself with the human protagonist,rather than with the "weaker" side characters.

Neknoh
07-03-2009, 13:03
Actually dreameater, we have, and several stages at that.

I do not remember the species that wiped out the mammoths, but we then went onto Homo Sapiens and scientists argue that now, we might actually have ascended that and are now Sapiens Sapiens.

theunwantedbeing
07-03-2009, 13:07
The designers are human, therefore know the general strength and weakneses of a human. So that's the benchmark for them to base everything else off.
This inevitably means that humans end out being the average thing in the warhammer world.

We may well be top of the food chain here, but it's certainly not down to any phsyical attributes we have and wahammer stats are all about physical attributes.

the_raptor
07-03-2009, 14:20
actully the human body has not changed since we evolved from monkey's as we do not need to

Evolution has nothing to do with need. Our senses are "dull" (as another post put it earlier) because of evolution. Keen senses no longer lead to greater reproductive success therefore they are not preserved by evolution (degeneration is the inevitable fate of any trait that does not positively affect reproductive success).

The current difference in reproduction between the successful and the not-successful will also eventually shape our descendants. And increases in genetic disease and weaker immune systems are also a consequence of our modern medicine. Eventually we will be incapable of existing without our modern technology.


we then went onto Homo Sapiens and scientists argue that now, we might actually have ascended that and are now Sapiens Sapiens.

No, Homo sapiens sapiens is the sub-species of Homo sapiens to which you and I belong. As it is the only currently non-extinct sub-species we are normally referred to as plain "Homo sapiens" in the common literature. We have been Homo sapiens sapiens since the 18th century. Hardly a recent innovation.

Neknoh
07-03-2009, 14:39
Ah, then ok... still since the seventeenth century, although still, I guess we "evolved from monkeys" a bit earlier than that, no? :p

Petey
07-03-2009, 16:29
The untrained human baseline is three's across, this is mainly because it is a D6 system, and you said it yourself, what makes a human fight slower than a marauder but as good as a rat? Because it is your averge joe, also, the rats are FAR quicker.

Furthermore, the baseline refers to a lightly trained human, people whom are very well trained are weaponskill four, this catches both swordsmen whom are heavely training troops, and marauders whom lead lives of constant battle.


The human is average because there are weaker and meeker things out there, zombies and nightgobblins for instance, whilst there are also tonnes of stronger things in the world as well.

this is incorrect, untrained humans are in fact WS/BS2. you only get to 3 from being a professional fighter. other than that little nitpick, i totally agree with you

Petey
07-03-2009, 16:31
I'm going to have to call you on the disease front; modern humans have a very well developed immune system, due to the fact we are constantly challenged by different viruses and bacteria that have evolved since humans began living in large societies.

In fact if you took a modern human and dropped him/her way back when, the diseases they carried with them would be the problem. There's plenty of examples where european explorers have carried diseases that have decimated native populations.

And I doubt the environment would get a modern day man who was versed in survival techniques, especially a 'tribe' of such people. In fact they would probably be better off than the 'ancestors' because they would have a keener understanding of what was going on around them.


When it comes to how humans ended up top of the food chain, it boils down to the ability to build and utilise tools and to work in true teams; specifically with high level communication and planning. There is obviously a lot of give and take, for instance we have an upright gait, which loses us the ability to move as quickly, or potentially with as much agility, however it frees up our hands to do other things, etc.

i m in total agreement (and as a hunter and ex soldier, i m in that tribe you re talking about ;) )

jason
07-03-2009, 16:44
I would consider myself S4 T4 :D

OldMan
07-03-2009, 16:54
. Now, since 100% of people who play Warhammer are human beings


Now, i would discuss with that statement.:)

I completely agree with the rest.

SimonL
07-03-2009, 17:09
Now, i would [disagree?] with that statement.

Same here, my dog is actually an accomplished Warhammer player and master painter...:rolleyes:

Leogun_91
07-03-2009, 17:25
I would consider myself S4 T4 :DYou consider yourself to have a 50%chance of still being able to fight after having received a good hit from an armed ogre?

scolex
07-03-2009, 17:43
We are an easy baseline model for comparison that anyone who would play can relate to.

Also, it would be slightly pompous of the species to put out a game were we travel the galaxy for thousands of centuries and only find aliens who come up to our knees, can't lift a twig, have stone age level technology, crawl everywhere slowly, worship Kenny G as a god, you get the point. Reversing the situation also sounds rather defeatist. "Why yes Nigel we Humans have a proud tradition of showing up on some planet with guns to find the inhabitants are hyper smart giants with death rays. Then we take a good beating and run to Terra with our tails betwixt our legs."

WLBjork
07-03-2009, 18:27
No, Homo sapiens sapiens is the sub-species of Homo sapiens to which you and I belong. As it is the only currently non-extinct sub-species we are normally referred to as plain "Homo sapiens" in the common literature. We have been Homo sapiens sapiens since the 18th century. Hardly a recent innovation.

Although the scientists got it wrong back then.

The proper nomenclature for humans should be Pan Narrans. :p

spetswalshe
07-03-2009, 18:48
Exactly scholex. Who wants to play a game where all the opponents of humanity are varieties of goblin? When a human stands up to an ogre and wins, it's heroic; when a goblin does the same, it's frankly humiliating. And it's inevitable that sometimes, the humans lose.

O&G'sRule
07-03-2009, 20:07
An orc is a huge muscular beast and strength 3 toughness 4, a man has to compare badly on almost all cases. they also aren't enhanced by the chaos gods or a Massive lizard so they won't be as good as those. though they are probably rightly better than a goblin or skeleton. If you really think about it, on average, howthings stack up is about right

Orcboy_Phil
07-03-2009, 20:24
Also Mammoths were taken
down by spears, and a crap load of humans, plus rope to trip them. Do
you think we would have been just as effective if we didn't have spears
or the rope, I honestly don't think so.

Umm your a bit wrong there. Mammoths where taken down by setting fires and driving them over cliffs.


Our legs are not built for running fast

No our legs are designed for endurance. Where designed for the long hunt, coupled with our capacity for pack tactics, we chase our prey into ambushes and too exhaustion.


actully the human body has not changed since we evolved from monkey's as we do not need to ,the animals have evolved to survive, if you took all the animals who had evoved a certain way and changed the enviroment after genrations they would not have that aspect , thats why we don't have neandathols with us to day, because humans and neandathols competed for the same food and the one who was physical stroger lost to the higher intelligence so why don't they representt this in ghe game

Except the loss of a prehensile tale, general increase in height and mass, larger more complex brain, the ability to use a large vareity of vocalizations. Yeah not much change at all. Also Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis is alive and well and living in your genes.

slingersam
07-03-2009, 20:44
I thought thats how they took down mammoths with spears, and rope
but i'm not a major expert in what happened before the ice age. I just
got what I got from tv shows so they could be wrong.

Rioghan Murchadha
07-03-2009, 20:53
The current difference in reproduction between the successful and the not-successful will also eventually shape our descendants. And increases in genetic disease and weaker immune systems are also a consequence of our modern medicine. Eventually we will be incapable of existing without our modern technology.


Yes.. and it's going to shape them in an extremely negative way. Since there are no barriers to reproductive success today (even weak, stupid, ugly, lazy people can have kids, and indeed, tend to have more of them than successful people).

Largely due to the fact that unsuccessful people tend to have more kids than successful people (at least in the western world) we could be looking at one of the shortest runs of any dominant species in history, as we all become slavering ****** in a relatively short number of generations.

Orcboy_Phil
07-03-2009, 21:18
Yes.. and it's going to shape them in an extremely negative way. Since there are no barriers to reproductive success today (even weak, stupid, ugly, lazy people can have kids, and indeed, tend to have more of them than successful people).

Largely due to the fact that unsuccessful people tend to have more kids than successful people (at least in the western world) we could be looking at one of the shortest runs of any dominant species in history, as we all become slavering ****** in a relatively short number of generations.

Conversly, the smart are generally interbreeding so we could end up with two new Subspecies Homo Sapien Chavus and Homo Sapien Geekus. I wouldn't really worry about it we'll be long dead before it happens and there still plenty of pure human populations around the world with high infant mortality and a lack of moden technology.

Slingersam = Its also how the Native Americans hunted Buffalo. Scare the bejesus out of a herd and funnel them over a cliff.

Hrogoff the Destructor
07-03-2009, 22:17
actully the human body has not changed since we evolved from monkey's as we do not need to ,the animals have evolved to survive, if you took all the animals who had evoved a certain way and changed the enviroment after genrations they would not have that aspect , thats why we don't have neandathols with us to day, because humans and neandathols competed for the same food and the one who was physical stroger lost to the higher intelligence so why don't they representt this in ghe game

Neanderthals on average had bigger brains than Homo Sapiens Sapiens and were extremely intelligent in spite of their portrayal in modern media.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens only entered Europe about 40,000 years ago because of the Neanderthals. They were stronger and even possibly (in spite of contrary belief) more intelligent. One of the most crucial differences that gave us the advantage over Neanderthals is that we could throw overhand. Neanderthals could not. As such Neanderthals had to get in close to kills things, whereas we could just throw spears at it and keep at a distance. It gave us a huge competitive edge.

Who would do better killing wooly rhinoceres in Europe? Those that had to stab it to death, or those that could throw spears at it? No matter how you look at it, it was far more dangerous to do hunting as neanderthals.

Plus, there is a huge controversy as to whether or not we were aware of the difference between Neanderthals and ourselves. There's an even more controversial theory that modern day Europeans are descended from both sapiens and neanderthals. It's not really commonly accepted at the moment, but it'll probably gain more ground as they find more "neanderthal-sapien" hybrids like those they found in Portugal.


the ability to use a large vareity of vocalizations

They have found hyoid bones of neanderthals that are very similar to that of modern homo sapiens sapiens. This implies that they could make a wide range of sounds just like we could.

Coram_Boy
07-03-2009, 23:37
Yes.. and it's going to shape them in an extremely negative way. Since there are no barriers to reproductive success today (even weak, stupid, ugly, lazy people can have kids, and indeed, tend to have more of them than successful people).

Largely due to the fact that unsuccessful people tend to have more kids than successful people (at least in the western world) we could be looking at one of the shortest runs of any dominant species in history, as we all become slavering ****** in a relatively short number of generations.

erm... this is wrong in so many ways. What are you saying here, excactly? That only people who meet a certain standard should be allowed children? And your quote about us 'all becoming slavering ******'?
...
...
...
Just because humanity allows people who are not the optimum to breed, that doesn't mean that we will become slavering ******. We have been breeding completely ignorant to all genetic knowledge for thousands of years, and we are none the worse for it, are we? Just because we know about it, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen before! Humans who are stupid, ugly (and why that will turn us into slavering ****** I don't quite know) or weak (why does this mean that their children will be any weaker? Genetic inheritance does not always pass on characteristics - all it means is that there is a chance of inheritance of characteristics, as well as a chance that a different characteristic may develop) You surely aren't saying that asomeone whose parents are both weak, stupid, ugly and so on CAN'T be strong, clever and handsome, are you? If you really think that unless only the best human specimens should be allowed to breed, look up 'Eugenics'. The Germans once had a similar idea. If only some people are allowed to breed, their genetic flaws become more defined, and you get seriously flawed offspring. It is the variation in humanity that allows us to be as diverse as we are.
And where did you get the idea that successful people reproduce less? Where did you get that idea? I just hope it's not something like 'in african countries, there are much more births, aren't there?'

W0lf
07-03-2009, 23:39
so your as hard to wound as a chaos warrior? a saurus?

Doubt it :P

Coram_Boy
07-03-2009, 23:45
Originally Posted by the_raptor
And increases in our knowledge of genetic disease which is up due to the fact that the world's population has also gone up by billions, not because of the fact that we are much better at saving people's lives now, and our stronger, more prepared immune systems are also a consequence of our modern medicine. Eventually we will be incapable of existing without our modern technology. In fact, we can hardly live without modern technology already - it dominates our everyday lives(

Corrected it for you :D

P.S the fact that we get treatment for diseases when we are ill now doesn't mean that we are less able to cope. Before then, we would just die. about 1/4 of people I know (including me) have had a disease which would previously have been fatal without modern treatment.

W0lf
08-03-2009, 00:02
oh and outta interest i would say the human statline is below average in warhammer.

Havock
08-03-2009, 00:08
You consider yourself to have a 50%chance of still being able to fight after having received a good hit from an armed ogre?

Actually, the new ogres are pathetic, barring a lucky shot it's just a piece of plastic. If anything, they have been nerfed bad, you used to be able to inflict prettynasty wounds and bruises with them.

Charistoph
08-03-2009, 00:19
One thing I'm curious about. If Elves/Eldar are supposedly not as tough or as strong as Humans... Than why do they have similar stats in those areas? :eyebrows:

W0lf
08-03-2009, 00:23
The extra T could be used to represent the fact they are harder to hit in the first place, this harder to wound (basically WS fails as a stat)

The extra S is easy. S+A represents kill power, a elf is as efficent at killing as a man. For example ogres are more like S6 but 3S4 shows killing ability for them better then 1S6.

You have to look outside the stat labels sometimes.

selone
08-03-2009, 00:26
because there's no strength or toughness 2 and a half.

Lordsaradain
08-03-2009, 00:28
The most powerful induviduals in the waqrhammer world are in fact humans (Mortal Champions of Chaos). So I wouldn't say that they are just average.

Neknoh
08-03-2009, 00:28
They aren't more fragile as such, rather, they have inherent physiological problems that prevents them from achieving a higher degree of toughness which dead hard heroes of humans can achieve, basically, they are equally strong and equally tough as your basic humans, but they just aren't as nitty gritty as the shiny heroes.

As for the statlines not being 3's, we are still looking at:

Empire
Bretonnia
High Elves
Dark Elves
Skeletons
Marauders, Horsemen
Goblins, Wolf Riders

For the humanoid T, S- 3 troops.

Orks - all kinds
Dwarfs - all kinds
Chaos Warriors, Knights
Forsaken
Daemons (although they vary here)
Grave Guard

Appart from a few elite units in some armies, and then only one stat in a few other units and ONE army, we are looking at Str, T3 for the mainline core troops for basically every humanoid army out there except for Dwarfs and the occasional Orc heavy Orcs & Goblins force.

slingersam
08-03-2009, 04:23
Slingersam = Its also how the Native Americans hunted Buffalo. Scare the bejesus out of a herd and funnel them over a cliff.

ya I knew that, they yelled and herded the buffalo's of the cliff, then when they landed they broke their legs ... usually. Anyway was born in Canada
and they kinda force you to learn about native Canadian life in the past, was really pointless class, but you really have no control of your education until you hit high school/collage. Anyway back on topic, Humans have great senses, and perception. We are the analyzers of the world, so we don't
fall to sneak attacks/ambushing, also our ability to work together has also kept us alive.

the_raptor
08-03-2009, 05:43
The extra S is easy. S+A represents kill power, a elf is as efficent at killing as a man. For example ogres are more like S6 but 3S4 shows killing ability for them better then 1S6.

It is more reliable against standard troops. They need this because of the frontage required for ogres which displace at least two normal troops. If they just had 1S6 attacks they would be better against heavily armoured things, but would be very hit and miss. Which is a terrible attribute for core troops.

Heinrich Jäger
08-03-2009, 08:26
Alright, just a few corrections on evolution...

1) We are Homo sapiens sapiens, we are a subspecies of homo sapiens which also include homo sapiens ascetorus (sp?)
2) We did not evolve from monkeys, rather APES and humans share a common ancestor that we both evolved from. (apes have evolved in the last 3.5 million years too)
3) We have evolved many times since we split from our common ancestor with apes. There have been many species including Homo habilis, Paranthropus and homo erectus.
4) Hrogoff, I don’t know about the throwing bit, nothing in their skeleton design would seem to prevent them from throwing (not at least anything I have heard) But you are right about the bigger brain and body size. The main reason though for their extinction is theorized to be that they were just not adapted for the warm environment. The faired way better in the cold.
5) Our plateau in evolution is not as drastic as everyone makes it out to be, we are not very likely to get worse as a species, there are just too many factors that people simplify to make a statement.

As for the actual discussion, Humans are the perfect bench mark to make average. Many fantasy stories outside of warhammer depict humans as average. Why tread on a good thing. And as many people have said it is easy to identify with. Our only other option is to make all the other races weaker, or stronger. Then someone would ask why Army X is average.

Hrogoff the Destructor
08-03-2009, 08:53
4) Hrogoff, I don’t know about the throwing bit, nothing in their skeleton design would seem to prevent them from throwing (not at least anything I have heard) But you are right about the bigger brain and body size. The main reason though for their extinction is theorized to be that they were just not adapted for the warm environment. The faired way better in the cold.

I'm no expert, but my anthropology teacher strongly emphasized that point. It's not exactly his area of expertise either (he's best at archaeology and Native American's of the northwest US).

ehlijen
08-03-2009, 10:15
Humans don't have great senses. Most animals can smell better than us, most can hear better than us and quite a few can see better than us.
Abstract thinking, ie the process of thinking in terms other than 'What am I doing' or 'what is it doing to me', has added to our sense of sight by allowing us to be able to analyse what we see and search for familiar patterns (thus allowing us to spot hidden creatures other animals might not be able to see) but that's about what our senses have going for them.

Griefbringer
08-03-2009, 10:35
Somebody has to be average.

And if that somebody would be a snotling or a giant, it would be a bit different setting.

The Clairvoyant
08-03-2009, 11:09
Umm your a bit wrong there. Mammoths where taken down by setting fires and driving them over cliffs.


Not to mention we had a higher unit strength and charged first.

Neknoh
08-03-2009, 11:29
Indeed, the mammoths didn't get impact hits when we did engage in combat, otherwise, we also have to remember a relatively low leadership against our panic inducing spells:

"Bushfire: Enemy units within 50 metres take a panic test as if they had been blindsided by a host of pre-ice-age mice"

Pokpoko
08-03-2009, 12:50
Plus, there is a huge controversy as to whether or not we were aware of the difference between Neanderthals and ourselves. There's an even more controversial theory that modern day Europeans are descended from both sapiens and neanderthals. It's not really commonly accepted at the moment, but it'll probably gain more ground as they find more "neanderthal-sapien" hybrids like those they found in Portugal.


Wasn't this hypothesis pretty much killed by the comparative DNA research recently,that found almost none shared points?I admit, it was a Newsweek article, not scientific one, but it seemed pretty definite.

Bran Dawri
08-03-2009, 13:19
Although the scientists got it wrong back then.

The proper nomenclature for humans should be Pan Narrans. :p

heheh. Awesome book.

Pilgrim
08-03-2009, 13:30
Just because humanity allows people who are not the optimum to breed, that doesn't mean that we will become slavering ******. We have been breeding completely ignorant to all genetic knowledge for thousands of years, and we are none the worse for it, are we?

At the same time, however, we have, at least in the West, fewer of the adverse living conditions that would have weeded out the 'less optimum' members of the species. For example, we no longer have to deal with certain diseases such as Polio, TB, Typhoid, etc, all of which killed large numbers of people. We also do not have to factor in predation, or various congenital conditions which interfere with the capacity to perform manual tasks.
We are also able to correct numerous defects which would have proved either disadvantageous, or outright fatal, in harder living conditions, such as shortsightedness, impaired hearing, etc.
Furthermore, we live in a society which is capable of supporting individuals with Down's syndrom, Cerebral Palsy, and other congenital conditions which would have proved fatal to an unsupported individual.

The support structures of modern Western society mean that many people who are unsuited for survival in harsher conditions are able to survive now, with the concommitant effect that these traits are likely to be more prevalent in the genepool.





Just because we know about it, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen before! Humans who are stupid, ugly (and why that will turn us into slavering ****** I don't quite know) or weak, why does this mean that their children will be any weaker?
Genetic inheritance does not always pass on characteristics - all it means is that there is a chance of inheritance of characteristics, as well as a chance that a different characteristic may develop.

No, it does not always pass on these traits, but it does make it rather more likely that they will continue to be transmitted. It is the same principle with selective breeding in animals or plants. You breed together individuals with the traits you wish to develop (or concomittantly, without traits that you wish to eliminate), on the understanding that their offspring are likely to share those characteristics. Due to the complexities of genetics the offspring will differ, sometimes (although rarely) quite radically, but the fact that selective breeding works is proved by the effects it has had on our domestic species.


You surely aren't saying that someone whose parents are both weak, stupid, ugly and so on CAN'T be strong, clever and handsome, are you?

No, but they are less likely to be so than someone whose parents both display all these characteristics. At least, this is the case if those traits are genetically expressed, as opposed to environmentally inflicted.

It comes down to the difference between a trait that comes about because of the environment, and is therefore external, or one that is genetic, and thus inherent. For example, if someone has heart disease because of a poor lifestyle then it will not be passed to their children. If they have a congenitallyw eak heart then their children are likely to be at risk as well.


If you really think that unless only the best human specimens should be allowed to breed, look up 'Eugenics'. The Germans once had a similar idea.

As have many other people throughout history, Godwin can go back in his box. It may be arguably unethical, but eugenics would function no differently on people than with any other species. I seem to remember the idea was also being put about during the Victorian era in a variety of contexts.


If only some people are allowed to breed, their genetic flaws become more defined, and you get seriously flawed offspring. It is the variation in humanity that allows us to be as diverse as we are.

It depends on the size of the genepool. I am not sure of the cutoff point, although I believe it is fairly low. Nevertheless, while I broadly agree with you, I would add that diversity primarily equals success in an evolutionary environment, with evolution arguably a less significant influence on humanity now. It must be admitted that many disadvantageous traits are more prevalent now, for reasons outlined above, which is a clear case of diversity not necessarily meaning 'better'.


And where did you get the idea that successful people reproduce less? Where did you get that idea? I just hope it's not something like 'in african countries, there are much more births, aren't there?'

I do not think Rioghan was meaning it in a racist context. There is a difference between racism and eugenics, despite the occasional links between the two.
The idea that the more successful people reproduce less is often brought up with regard to Western societies and the idea that the rich get that way by focusing more on career, by not spending money on children, etc, meaning that childbearing is de-emphasised. The poor tend to breed a lot for a variety of reasons, historically including: extra income generation from more workers in the family, sex as a cheap recreational activity, and in modern times, through children meaning extra government welfare.

In the modern economic and social climate, children are, pragmatically, a liability as much as an asset. Hence, many people, particularly the economically successful, choose to have few, or none.

Pilgrim
08-03-2009, 13:33
Although the scientists got it wrong back then.

The proper nomenclature for humans should be Pan Narrans. :p

Who was it who coined that 'storytelling ape' description? I remember the term, but I can't for the life of me remember where I read it :(

Sounds like something Pratchett would have come up with.

Harwammer
08-03-2009, 14:19
I wonder what the Mean M, Ws, Bs, S, T, W, I, A, Ld in warhammer actually works out as...

In prospective regards to evolution of humans: why do people think humans are going to turn to mush because of medicine? Its just another enviromental influence on the development of the species. Arguably an instinct to seek medicine when you need it is going to be a highly selected characteristic in the modern world.

"Woke up this morning feeling the sudden urge to get radiotherapy".

Bran Dawri
08-03-2009, 22:28
Close. The "storytelling ape" is from one of the Science of Discworld books (I forgot which, but I think the first one - WLBjork?).

Thommy H
08-03-2009, 22:33
I'm overjoyed that I started a debate about human evolution.

zak
08-03-2009, 23:10
I was sure the original poster was talking about the fantasy setting, but it appears that having read this thread that I have learnt all I will ever need, rather than wanted, to know about human evolution. I think thew answer has already been stated several times. Use yourself as a base and then base the fictional beasts around this average. For example Orcs are tougher, but slower so increase a stat here and decrease another stat there and you have the basic Orc, which the rest of the Green skins are then based upon.