Poll: Choose your favourite Dwarf army. There can be only one!

To be honest, I'm still betting on the chimp in a fight.

That only holds true if the Dwarfs are lighter. Muscle mass is the key, not height.

Dwarfs are shorter, but at the same time they are much broader in the shoulders, chest and back. This gives them more attachment points for muscle. In fact, they are typically modeled (in terms of the physical GW models) with more muscle than their ordinary human counterparts (non-Chaos / chaos wastes).

They would be more representative of the maximum strength on your bell curve (the rightmost portion under the curve).

 

I mean the chimp also has other advantages, like a vicious bite and the fact that it's a feral animal that will not hesitate to murder you.
And while say an olympic level judoka might have the strength needed to fight on even ground he does have some pesky limitations, like being trained only to do judo, not to defend himself against a murderous monkey.

Those aspects alone makes a fight to the death between a chimp and unarmed human a tad unbalanced, even if the human has more raw strength.
Same holds for other dangerous animals. Plenty of animals who have less absolute strength than we do, but as long as they have claws or a good bite, or simply because they're feral creatures who will not hesitate, they are still very dangerous for us.

It'd be interesting to see what'd happen if you'd get a chimp to fight fairly, teach it judo or wrestling.
If only that were practical.

Fortunatly dwarfs don't pose these issues

Yes, hence why I compared weights with the chimp example.

Unfortunatly I can't really find anything about dwarven weight. The best I can find is someone pointing out that in LoTR Gimli & Legolas ride together on one horse, with Gimli in full armour. Which means that Gimli is significantly lighter than a human, even when armoured, because otherwise Legolas and Aragorn would've ridden together so they would be faster.

Admittadly, wrong franchise, maybe warhammer dwarfs are heavier. But it's the best i can find.

Also, this does nicely line up with chimps again. Right height for dwarfs, and a weight that would make sense as well if we assume they are relativly stronger, but in absolute terms can still lose out due to simply being smaller and thus weighing less.

O definitly, but I'm curious if the slayers with the most impressive feats would be say the top 20% the top 10% the top 1% or even the top 0.0001%

 

Even if the Chimp could be trained to refrain from biting (or muzzled), it could easily pummel a human to death. Their musculature is simply different from ours. You can see it in the way they are able to climb so effortlessly. People who have held even a small chimp often attest to how dense and strong it feels.

I think models and artwork provide the best glimpse at their relative weights (and strengths). Dwarfs seem thicker and stockier. Their muscles seem larger and more defined on average. The Black Library books I've read seem to indicate this as well, although they were talking about Slayers (in addition to Gotrek).

I don't see many non-Chaos humans that look like this (starting at 53 seconds into the clip):

LOTR Dwarves visually seem a lot smaller, lighter and weaker than their WFB counterparts.

 

So can a trained human.

Which is also kind of the issue when comparing us to chimps. Chimps spend the entire day climbing trees and whatnot, we have an office job and don't do anything more strenous than getting up to get coffee. That difference alone means the average chimp will easily beat the average human, even if we ignore the fact that they have higher muscle density, a better bite and are fare more violent/willing to kill.

On the bright side, we're better at walking, so that's usefull

I tried comparing the models in TW warhammer, there the slayers are actually only barely wider than humans. With the exception of Gotrek and Ungrim, but those are legendary characters, and those are always far bigger than their regular counterparts so they look more impressive.

Similarly, when I compare the fyreslayer models i have with my kairic acolytes, who are supposed to look like they do at their peak and are conveniently also naked, they don't really look wider. Sure they look thicker, but that's only cuz it seems like they're trying to fit the same amount of muscles in a shorter body.

Even if you look at official art from felix and gotrek it's not like Gotrek is significantly wider than Felix. And Gotrek is the most impressive slayer ever (and felix isn't exactly supposed to be a superstrong human)




And since they're apparently about as wide as a human, or at least not massivly wider. And obviously they're shorter. They kinda have to be lighter.
Either that or they're magically significantly denser which is of course always an option in a fantasy setting.

Also, it's not like their builds are impossible for humans. I mean, they're just modelled after human strongmen physique just shorter, especially the slayers.

Compared to slayers, definitly, don't think I've seen a lotr dwarf who looks as musculair as a slayer. But regular dwarfs seem quite comparable. Though WFB armour seems a lot rounder than lotr dwarf armour, makes them look bulkier.

Anyway, unless we manage to find some sources actually detailing a superhuman achievement by a regular dwarf, or some sources about their weight and such, I think we might be kinda stuck with our discussion at this point.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

Unarmed, a trained human is going to get its face ripped off by that Chimp (even without the biting).

I have no desire to speak on AoS (obviously I am not well read on it)... my official source is the original source, WFB. That said, the kairic acolytes seem to be Tzeentch aligned. That's not exactly fair, I've avoided anything that is Chaos tainted (because it gets silly then). I've got my Bull Centaur sitting right in front of me as we speak, and that is literally a Dwarf mutated in the Chaos wastes. I can assure you that they are bigger than the Kairic Acolytes. But that wouldn't be fair, so I've refrained from including anything touched by the corruption of Chaos, for both humans and Dwarfs.

When I compare models out of the WFB Dwarfs range against the WFB Empire OR Bretonnia range, the Dwarfs on average seem beefier.

Disagree...


Look at Gotrek's bare deltoid (shoulder), it is bigger than Felix's armoured shoulder (even accounting for the fact that Felix is standing just behind Gotrek). And don't get me started on the thickness of their legs!! Felix looks like he always skips leg day at the gym! Surely you can't deny the difference in their legs?!?



Look at the difference between the shoulders, upper arm, forearm and thickness of hands. It's not even close.

That's true, fair enough.

 

Used the kairic Acolytes cuz they're not particularly empowered (physically at least), they're merely humans in peak shape. Being followers of tzeentch their boons focus on magic and such. So they're still reasonably representable of a human.

Also I don't have any cities of sigmar models, so not like I have a choice. And the only reason I got any dwarfs at all is cuz of the silver tower box

If you give me some "acceptable" human models I'l compare those , and that's totally not an excuse to get my hands on more models

Gotrek's muscles are more pronounced yes, and relativly speaking they're definitly bigger, but not necesarly bigger in absolute terms. If Felix wasn't significantly taller then I'd agree with you.

Here's felix standing in front of Gotrek and Felix standing in front of an Ungrim


Gotrek is small enough that he can almost completly hide behind felix. Sure he's a little bit wider,but not by much.
And even Ungrim, who has a much wider stance than Felix (or Gotrek) and some pretty big armour still isn't much wider, or all that visible. You're still only really seeing their arms and legs. And that is partially due to their significantly wider stance than Felix.

And in fact, neither seems to be wider at the shoulder. They have thicker legs and arms, but their shoulders don't seem to actually be wider, as you can't actually see their shoulders at all.

Here's a picture of felix behind (or almost in) Gotrek to show their shoulder width really doesn't differ that much from that angle either.


They also seem to have the same base if you look at their unit circles, so even that isn't very different:

(blue circle is gotrek, yellow is felix)

In contrast to say an ork warboss, Who's circle is clearly bigger than Felix his circle:
(again, yellow is felix, blue is the ork)

Which all in all means that say Gotreks legs (and arms) are an inch, maybe 2 thicker. And that's being really generous. But that'd (largely) cancel out against the fact that Felix simply has longer limbs. Resulting in overall very similar muscle masses.

Anyway, derailed the tread far enough by now?

 

All I can see in this picture is a thick set of legs and a spindly set of legs. No contest in my eyes. I even showed @Mrs. NIGHTBRINGER and she agrees. There hands are a big give away too. Gotrek has thick, strong bear-like paws.

That said, to each their own.

Gotrek's legs seem twice as thick. Maybe you mean 2 inches thicker on your computer screen?!

Plus, physiologically, the strength of a muscle is determined by its cross-sectional area, not its length.

 

Yes, his arms/legs are thicker, but his chest/body as a whole isn't. Which was the point I am trying to make.

Taller people are generally stronger than shorter people, with the same physical fitness. So I don't think that's entirely correct. Thickness might be more important, but length definitly isn't irrelevant.

Sadly there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of research into how strength releates to length of a muscle. I guess cuz it's rather impossible to increase muscle length and simply combining tall and short people while controlling for width is probably rather difficult and introduces all sorts of confounding factors in your study. So controlled studies to determine the impact of length are a bit hard.

We need some unethical scientist to grow muscles of different sizes and compare them

 

So at least we're in agreement that Gotrek's arms and legs are stronger. Some progress I suppose.

As for their bodies, Gotrek is much thicker there too. By your own admission, Gotrek is a bit thicker, and then you have to factor in that Gotrek is not wearing armour and Felix is.

I'm telling you, muscle strength is determined by its cross-sectional area (i.e. thickness) and not length. There are other factors like fiber type and density, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

As for the effect of tallness, that only works when they are also thicker/wider. If you look at the Professional Strongmen, the big tall ultra successful ones are simply much thicker/wider than a really short person could ever be. That said, even there, being short or tall (relatively) has advantages and disadvantages; they do better and worse at different events. But no, you won't see anyone that is 4'8" in the World's Strongest Man competition because such a frame size does not allow them to be as thick/wide. With a Dwarf however, being a different species (a fictional one at that), we can see from the art work and their depiction that this limitation is bypassed.

If you control for weight, (and assuming the same body fat percentage) then the shorter person will often be stronger.

 

No, they're thicker, not necesarly stronger.

Only barely though, and Ungrim isn't thicker despite wearing significantly bigger pauldrons than Felix is (honestly that one surprised me.

Since I couldn't find any good sources myself I've asked my girlfriend who's a medical doctor.
After some grumbling about how this discussion is silly and we are oversimplifying things she looked into it

She found the following:
1) Length v.s. thickness has a negligible impact on effective strength if the muscles are otherwise the same
2) Short muscles might (strong emphasis on might) be slightly more prone to injuries.

She also added, that the muscle isn't the only relevant factor. And not just the stuff you mentioned like fiber types. But even the simple fact that the limb itself is longer can in itself make up for a weaker muscle depending on the type of movement you're doing.

I.e. if you're using your arm as a lever then a weak muscle on a longer arm, can be more effective than a strong muscle on a shorter arm due to how levers work.

And finally she added that the entire discussion is moot anyway cuz dwarfs have completely different proportions so the entire physics of their movements is different. So for example even if they have stronger muscles, they might be using them less efficiently for particular movements due to the way their bodies are designed (or alternativly, more efficiently of course).

And since we don't have the intricate medical information needed to be able to judge how dwarfs work exactly, this basicly puts us back to square one; the fact that we don't really have any stories of regular dwarfs doing things that regular (fit) humans can't do. Really all we have is just bits of fluffs saying things like "dwarfs are strong like the mountains" and the occasional dwarf hero like Gotrek doing impossible things cuz he's the main character and has a magic axe and plotarmour.

ah well.

 

If you look at Felix's legs and Gotrek's legs and you can't discern which of the two is stronger, then I can't really help you.

That statement is simply incorrect. I've spoken to quite a few Kinesiology professors, and that is where I've gotten it from. These are the people whose literal profession it is to study precisely this subject matter (the muscle stuff... not the Dwarf vs. Human stuff ).

Assuming we're talking about the same density and type of muscle fiber, then the contractile strength of the muscle in question comes down to the cross-sectional area of the muscle.

Yes... but in the opposite way you are describing. But don't take my word for it, run a little experiment...

1. take a rigid shaft (broom handle, hockey stick, etc.) and place a 5 pound weight on the end of it (opposite to the end where you will be holding it)
2. holding the shaft at the opposite end from the weight, lift the weight off the ground with outstretched arms until it is directly in front of you (i.e. the shaft should be running fully parallel to the ground)
3. now cut the shaft in half, and repeat the exercise
4. now cut the shaft in half yet again (so it's 1/4 of its original length), and repeat the exercise
5. record how "easy" it is to lift the weight with the relative lengths of the shaft

I guarantee you that the shorter the shaft, the easier it will be to lift the weight.

In this experiment:

• you represent the muscle (which is the same across all shaft lengths, provided you use the same technique across all experimental runs)
• your grip on the shaft represents the tendon (which attaches muscle to bone)
• the shaft represents the bone (where the longer shaft represents the bone/limb of a taller/lankier person)

That said, this discussion is becoming increasingly pointless (which really is saying something). Honestly, go to a gym and work out for a year. While you do so, make note of those around you. Observe their body types and their lifting ability. I say that a year from now, you'll have gained some valuable experience and insight; and most of our disagreements will have evaporated (about muscle, not the dwarf vs. human stuff). At the very least, you won't come into the discussion thinking that Felix could out squat or deadlift Gotrek. (yes I know you didn't exactly claim that, but you'll be able to discern that a physique like Gotrek's is stronger than Felix's).

 

Some fun conversions:



Grrr, Imrahil