Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Leo G.4501

Leo G.4501

Someone been talking about size

Not official.

This is official AND current:

Attachments:

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

I don’t know, that just seemed to be the part you addressed. My original comment about piercing weapons was:
‘Piercing weapons it would depend on whether either of them had armour capable of stopping the other in the first place: impaled on a spear and impaled on a spear harder being notably less important a difference than something like impaled on a spear or really uncomfortable having the tip of a spear lodged between those ribs but not quite dead.’

So ignoring the tangent that it seems neither of us are focusing on, the ability to manhandle your opponent would be a great advantage wherether they have armor or not but especially if they do have armor. because it allows you better opportunities to drive that piercing weapon where you want to drive it. So while “possible” for the charr to do it, the advantages and opportunities favor the norn, so that’s where we start to see “tendancies” going to the norn as well.

Inexperience. But you could replace this with something like 5ft human adult vs 7ft human adult or something like that, and when they’re both provided weapons and a history of combat or training for it, I still wouldn’t be surprised by either outcome.

Experience isn’t guaranteed but give them the same experience (because hey, let’s relate our discussion to the topic we’re discussing) and either way the 7 foot human has a clear advantage due to strength and as we see in martial sports, strength tends to be a big factor. It makes every move the opponent can also deliver, more devastating to the opponent. Huge advantage. And that huge advantage is evident with only a couple pounds of muscle. Multiply that advantage by the supernatural strength of the norn and it isn’t even a question.

I’m not saying it isn’t an advantage, I just don’t think it’s as important as it’s been made out to be. In no small part because it seems the basis for assuming the strength difference is so great in the first place depends a lot on how literally we take one sentence.

Greater advantages translate into tenancies. A-net confirms how important it is by stating the outcome of the lore history. They are further backed up with verifiable lore abilities and habits of the norn. So the evidence goes well beyond just one sentence. We know Norn aren’t organized. We know they have no standing army. We know they are immensely strong and we know they drove the charr (a larger more organized force) back. A-net’s intention in describing that lore historical account seems pretty clear no matter how much we try to play devils advocate. So even minimizing the importance of strength, if their individual ability (all told, strength included) is enough to beat a larger organized force of charr, it doesn’t make sense that a lone charr would tend to fair better against a norn who have already tended to be capable of doing so much damage to multiple charr. So the topic of this thread has really already been addressed by a-net and the answer confirmed.

We’re speculating about what might tend to happen in imaginary circumstances, based on ability. A tendency like cougar attacks on humans being (relatively) easily thwarted is based on animal behaviour, and not useful here. I pointed out that it was possible because it involved a generally smaller species than you selected, and on that note:

The animal behavior was addressing your comment about different fighting styles due to diffrent physiology. I specifically selected the puma to illustrate that though the height may be comparable, the strength is not and therefor it illustrates my point perfectly.

A leopard is not a jaguar.

it was late. I mixed the them up. But as I said the leopard is known for it’s strength so you are still adding strength to the puma in order to conceivably allow them to compete with a gorilla. And we have no details about that one incident where anything could be a factor. So this one incident still only references a “possibility” which isn’t in disagreement. It doesn’t represent the “tendancies”. What does illustrate the tendancies is the fact that this singular incident is so interesting and noteworthy.

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Drakenvold.9761

Drakenvold.9761

They way i see it,Norn are stronger than the Charr in general,its supported by the norn intro,also its stated that their skin is resistant to cold weather so it might not be as soft as a human,since it resists the cold,might take a scratch or two till its damaged,of course it all boils down to various random factors,like terrain,experience and so forth,but on equal footing id give the charr more skill as a warrior but still would lose the fight,the charr do wage war and are awesome soldiers,but a one on one is not a war,a norn hunter or warrior is a brawler,theres not many room there,everything goes,sure the charr is disciplined,sure it may be more skilled or war savvy,but the norn is stronger,lives off of the land and is used to fight,just there a tie might be setup,now take the norn transformation on top of it,what the charr has as skill or swordsmanship,even ferocity,the transformation of the norn tops it,on a large scale war,full legion of the shiverpeaks,the norn without a ruling system would strugle but eventually fall,on a single contest,the norn wins,no doubt

Norn:
-stronger
-resiliant
-transformation

Charr:
-skills
-tactics

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Leo G.4501

Leo G.4501

Just wanted to comment how funny it was reading this thread

Charr are physically stronger? The lore says otherwise. One cannot go by in-game mechanics as those are equalized among all races. Either all races have equal strength, or Norn have greater strength because lore said so.

Charr are bigger? Not according to in-game mechanics. The tallest Norn is taller than the tallest Charr. In lore, Norn are giants but were downscaled for the game’s mechanics.

Charr are more skilled? Skill relies on the character. One can’t discount the way one race prepares their warriors over another. Unless it is stated that Charr are the wisest and most skilled combatants in lore, then they are on the same footing as anyone else.

Charr have the advantage when unarmed? Norn become unarmed when they transform. It’s the same thing.

The main strength of a Charr is their unity and their technology which do not play a part in the debate. It’s a one-on-one, not a warband vs a group of Norn. It’s a fight not a war, so their tactics aren’t the subject. It’s a test of skill not a contest of technology.

If it was asked who’d win an organized war, it would definitely be the Charr. If it’s just a brawl in a bar, weapons or no, it’s Norn.

Although if this is just a preference question, I’d rather see the Charr beat the Norn…unless it was a female Norn. Then the Norn. I don’t like the look of male Norn at all.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: CETheLucid.3964

CETheLucid.3964

Charr are bigger? Not according to in-game mechanics. The tallest Norn is taller than the tallest Charr. In lore, Norn are giants but were downscaled for the game’s mechanics.

Nope. Tallest norn and tallest charr are just about the same size… and the charr is hunching over.

That’s natural for charr mind you, but if he puts himself straight up (such as with /salute)… he could end up being be a head or two taller.

I’d have given you the lore argument, maybe, but you specifically said according to the in-game mechanics. That’s not true.

Charr can be made massive. I assume since that’s not exactly expounded upon, it’s probably an uncommon thing (tall people are by definition uncommon) and certainly not a defining characteristic.

Where with norn, tall people are the standard. Even the shortest of norns are the very tallest of individuals by human standards.

An average norn is a giant compared to an average human.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: LameFox.6349

LameFox.6349

…the ability to manhandle your opponent would be a great advantage wherether they have armor or not but especially if they do have armor. because it allows you better opportunities to drive that piercing weapon where you want to drive it. So while “possible” for the charr to do it, the advantages and opportunities favor the norn, so that’s where we start to see “tendancies” going to the norn as well.

Experience isn’t guaranteed but give them the same experience (because hey, let’s relate our discussion to the topic we’re discussing) and either way the 7 foot human has a clear advantage due to strength and as we see in martial sports, strength tends to be a big factor. It makes every move the opponent can also deliver, more devastating to the opponent. Huge advantage. And that huge advantage is evident with only a couple pounds of muscle. Multiply that advantage by the supernatural strength of the norn and it isn’t even a question.

I’m not contending that it’s not an advantage (I’m sure I said that earlier) but I don’t see where you’re getting the idea that it’s so much of one in this case. If you’re specifically talking unarmed combat or something sport-like in particular then I’d probably agree (although I’m not sure to what extent some unarmed combat techniques negate physical advantages, so I’m assuming for better or worse that if both sides know the techniques it’s back to square one, so to speak) but grappling is just one part of combat with weapons, and there are a lot of ways to be killed or injured without it ever happening.

Also when you say things like ‘but being agile enough to dodge all blows is a pretty unrealisitic [sic] expectation and expends an enormous amount of energy’, I have to wonder just what sort of fight you’re expecting here. If we’re talking about people trying to kill eachother, ‘all blows’ may not be very many at all – this fight could last seconds, it might only be one swing you need to avoid and then you’ve stuck a sword into your enemy’s face/neck, or you fail to avoid it and are maimed and killed.

If it were some sort of formal-ish duel like fencing¹ then I could see it going on long enough that fatigue starts to matter (assuming it wasn’t already an issue by then), or in the case of battle then it may be that after successive fights, a norn takes longer to tire and thus, if he or she survives and takes no impairing injuries, may enter each fight better prepared.² However if there’s one of each and they really want the other dead, I have a feeling one or both of them will die before either needs to worry about exhaustion.

Then of course there are also ranged weapons, which make things even less certain. With bows a norn’s strength should allow them to be effective at longer ranges (or rather, to use bows which can be effective at longer ranges, since over-extending one is probably a bad idea), while if they were using rifles lore would suggest the charr weapon is more advanced. As far as comparing a norn with a bow to a charr with a rifle though, I’m not quite sure how to assume the rifles function lore-wise. If it was taking them something like 30-60sec to reload each time they’d need to engage from longer ranges to negate the bow’s speed, and would be at a disadvantage if both were in range, but if they’ve developed things like revolving guns or bolt/lever actions allowing a faster rate of fire it may just come down to whoever sees/shoots the other first.

Actually, I notice they do have ‘machine guns’ in some areas in the form of a deployed swivelling turret, but its rate of fire is fairly mediocre compared to what we’d consider a machine gun. So I gather they’ve surpassed muzzle-loading in technology, and it just depends on whether it’s been made small enough to be applied to hand-held weapons yet.

¹though even in fencing people get jabbed pretty quickly, so if it were performed with lethal intent (and weapons) I still don’t expect it would go on long.

²I probably shouldn’t assume that strength = endurance, but I don’t know if there’s anything else by which to get an idea of it.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: LameFox.6349

LameFox.6349

Greater advantages translate into tenancies. A-net confirms how important it is by stating the outcome of the lore history.

In a small battle scenario what I mentioned before could also be a contributing factor, both regarding effectiveness in successive fights and the earlier post when I suggested asymmetrical warfare. Norn could tend toward greater efficiency (in a kills to deaths sense) even if the outcome of a fight between two individuals was much less certain.

They are further backed up with verifiable lore abilities and habits of the norn. So the evidence goes well beyond just one sentence.

Is this in reference to something specific, or…?

Also, it occurs to me that a lot of this discussion has involved what the average norn can do, which is missing half of the context here. What exactly is the average charr, and what it is capable of?

We know Norn aren’t organized. We know they have no standing army.

Not in the same way or to the same extent, but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say they aren’t organized. They do have a society (-ies?) with some degree of hierarchy, law, roles, and so on. They may lack an army, but they’re capable of forming militia (like the Wolfborn), and presumably their communities would do so if necessary.

We know they are immensely strong and we know they drove the charr (a larger more organized force) back. A-net’s intention in describing that lore historical account seems pretty clear no matter how much we try to play devils advocate. So even minimizing the importance of strength, if their individual ability (all told, strength included) is enough to beat a larger organized force of charr, it doesn’t make sense that a lone charr would tend to fair better against a norn who have already tended to be capable of doing so much damage to multiple charr. So the topic of this thread has really already been addressed by a-net and the answer confirmed.

What was described there were skirmishes (on their home territory) with small organized forces. This wouldn’t be an unbelievable outcome even if they were all the same species; if we take it as ‘the answer’ then the answer is only ‘it depends how literally you read this’.

The animal behavior was addressing your comment about different fighting styles due to diffrent physiology. I specifically selected the puma to illustrate that though the height may be comparable, the strength is not and therefor it illustrates my point perfectly.

You referred to two species which never interact – they’re not even from the same continent – and said that one would win. Never having heard of such a situation and wondering where it came from, I tried looking up any animals similar to a cougar that a gorilla may actually encounter, and came up with the leopard, which seemed to have a lower weight range than the cougar – but it would have to do since it was at least an overlapping range, and no other example appeared to exist.

With both species being far from most human observers as well as unlikely to interact, the most information I could find relevant to the match-up, if it even exists because it was only a citation, was just enough to say ‘they can kill each other’ and little else. That capacity doesn’t prove that it’s going to be a trend, but the presence of so little and so vague information says that unless you’re hiding some evidence, looking for a trend in fights to the death between pumas (or leopards) and gorillas is pointless. We don’t know which would prove more effective at killing the other.

it was late. I mixed the them up. But as I said the leopard is known for it’s strength so you are still adding strength to the puma in order to conceivably allow them to compete with a gorilla. And we have no details about that one incident where anything could be a factor. So this one incident still only references a “possibility” which isn’t in disagreement. It doesn’t represent the “tendancies”. What does illustrate the tendancies is the fact that this singular incident is so interesting and noteworthy.

Large cats in general are known for being strong in comparison to their weight. Directly comparing them is difficult when they behave differently (for instance we know leopards are good at pulling things up trees, which is a reasonable indication of strength… but to compare we’d need to convince a cougar that it’s a leopard) and live in such different places, as the available prey differs. In this case both species are known to be capable of killing very large animals like moose or eland antelope, which I use as a rough basis for their abilities being similar.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: LameFox.6349

LameFox.6349

In other news I can’t stand 5k character limits on a forum.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

Maybe it would help me if we restated our main point. Right now there is so much danger of focusing on so many tangents because so much of your info doesn’t actually speak to what I’m discussing. e.g.: cougars killing a moose. Nothing to do with how they fight verses a primate with much greater strength. yet that was the entire purpose of bringing the puma into it. And before we both waste time on things like that lets reassess our individual missions.

Mine is to state that a Norn will generally beat a charr in one on one combat. Armed or unarmed. It seems to me that it is confirmed by the fact that less organized (call it less organized or comparatively unorganized makes no difference to me or the conversation from what I can see) norn with no standing army beat back a more organized and larger force of charr. So it makes no sense for one charr to tend to do better against the individual fighting habits of the norn when multiple charr have tended to fail. Be it due in large part to the immense strength difference or small part. Either way, we see the results of the norns individual habits. So finding counters to each advantage is a pointless endeavor that not only states the obvious but doesn’t counter any evidence to my points. lot’s of scenarios are possible. But all the advantages add up to what tends to happen. And we have already seen what tends to happen.

Argueing against the advantages that lead to those tendancies is a losing battle. 1. because the proof of effectiveness is already supplied and 2. because it can change none of the facts of what we know the abilities of both the charr and the norn are.

So, from what I can see omly this addresses the actual issue:

What was described there were skirmishes (on their home territory) with small organized forces. This wouldn’t be an unbelievable outcome even if they were all the same species; if we take it as ‘the answer’ then the answer is only ‘it depends how literally you read this’.

I don’t know what indicates organization beyond the fact that there were multiple norn in one place. And since we know the habits of the norn, (like sending only a handful of individuals to ‘take care of’ the dragon problem, initially) we can infer that the organization was little to none. Especailly since Jeff grubb juxtaposed human virtue of cooperation with norn virtue of independence. Against an militarized species that train their whole life and didn’t just send “scouts” but war parties and raiding parties. So hoe literal do I read the history supplied by a-net? very. Since the literal account seems to be backed up by everything we know of the norn and the charr. And the intention of that literal account seems pretty deliberate on a-nets part. No matter how much we like to play devils advocate.

Also, it occurs to me that a lot of this discussion has involved what the average norn can do, which is missing half of the context here. What exactly is the average charr, and what it is capable of?

We know the average charr is a savage and viscious trained soldier since childhood. We see that an individual is generally capable of less than an individual norn in a one on one combat. Which only speaks even more highly of the norn because the norn is measured against such a high ruler that is the charr.

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Scoobaniec.9561

Scoobaniec.9561

Someone been talking about size

Not official.

This is official AND current:

Standing straight up charrs are actually highter than norms. Make a test ingame by either salute or at least picking up rifle in combat mode.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dagins.5163

Dagins.5163

@Scoobaniec.9561
And what if a norn stands up on their toes?
No, this is how things look: http://www.guildwarsinsider.com/backend/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/GuildWars2Heights.png
As someone before me said, norn are much stronger than charr and can defeat multiple of them solo at the same time, but they make somehow poor army, as they are individualists.

Signed, level 1 alt

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Willisium.5081

Willisium.5081

Lol oh god this is actually a little funny. How about we make it a kitten vs king kong?

We’re not talking about a gorilla vs a puma, or a leopard, or whatever the kitten else. We’re talking about two fictional creatures. You could call up any number of real life feline vs ape scenarios to support both sides and it’ll still be meaningless. In game my Asuras solo’d giants, and no “little person vs ape” line of reasoning will take that away from him.

Unarmed, I give it to the norn. Though technically smaller (IN GAME, fact, test it) they seem to have better weight distribution and probably hit like trucks. They could probably withstand a few scrapes and cuts from the Charr before smashing a skull.

With weapons? Well, what weapons? I see the Charr as more agile, when dealing with decent blades, hulk smash, hulk bash strength counts for a lot less than speed and precision.

Basically, I think it’s obvious Norn are stronger in general, but it all comes down to what the two individuals of each species have trained in, and what weapons they have available at the time. It’d probably come down more to their profession than their race.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: dusanyu.4057

dusanyu.4057

Norn have guts but a charr weapons available even if disarmed those claws horns and teeth can mess up a norn bad

(edited by dusanyu.4057)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Xkyline.5267

Xkyline.5267

Size isn’t a guarantee of strength,an Asura could probably kick both their kitten by using his head in the battle instead of just charging at each other,so the bigger is better theory doesn’t seem to fit in.Plus,the norn aren’t just built large and brawny,most of them are plain FAT with all that ale chugging…making them inherently slower,while the charr should obviously be faster…I mean,they’re big cat varieties on 2 feet after all and cats are like the most graceful mammals evaa If I was a charr,honestly I’d just view the fatass norn males as sources of good meat if I see one.The female norns I’d take back home with me for…research purposes.

‘Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak,
just because a baby can’t chew it’- Censored.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Celestina.2894

Celestina.2894

I guess I’m the only one who thinks that a 1 on 1 would likely end in a draw.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

Lol oh god this is actually a little funny. How about we make it a kitten vs king kong?

We’re not talking about a gorilla vs a puma, or a leopard, or whatever the kitten else. We’re talking about two fictional creatures. You could call up any number of real life feline vs ape scenarios to support both sides and it’ll still be meaningless. In game my Asuras solo’d giants, and no “little person vs ape” line of reasoning will take that away from him.

Unarmed, I give it to the norn. Though technically smaller (IN GAME, fact, test it) they seem to have better weight distribution and probably hit like trucks. They could probably withstand a few scrapes and cuts from the Charr before smashing a skull.

I doubt anyone is trying to take anything from anyones personal character or backstory. What we’re discussing is racial tendancies in one on one combat. So while it’s possible that your asura may be the Sho’Nuff of tyria, the asuran race isn’t known for it’s prowess in physical combat.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Drakenvold.9761

Drakenvold.9761

its mostly a tie in the majority of view between the regular norn and regular charr armed and one on one…now add the norn transformations

that there renders the ferocious/claws argument out of the discussion there

given even ground,random individuals with similar abilities/experiences(not a potter versus a soldier mind you)and one on one contest ill always give it to the Norn

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Leo G.4501

Leo G.4501

Charr are bigger? Not according to in-game mechanics. The tallest Norn is taller than the tallest Charr. In lore, Norn are giants but were downscaled for the game’s mechanics.

Nope. Tallest norn and tallest charr are just about the same size… and the charr is hunching over.

That’s natural for charr mind you, but if he puts himself straight up (such as with /salute)… he could end up being be a head or two taller.

And if a Norn stood on his tip toes too, he’d be taller than a Charr.

Charr are standing on their toes, you know this, right?

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Drakkon.4782

Drakkon.4782

And if a Norn stood on his tip toes too, he’d be taller than a Charr.
Charr are standing on their toes, you know this, right?

FALSE!

Charr have digitgrade legs. They are standing on the balls of their feet, not the toes. Like humans, Norn are plantigrade, resting on the entire foot, including the heel. The difference is negligible because plantigrade creatures tend to have longer thigh and shin bones, making the overall leg longer, while digitgrade creatures tend to have an elongated foot, shorter thigh and shin bones, resulting in the mistaken impression that their legs are “backward”, which the are not. The overall difference between plantigrade and digitgrade legs as a portion of the body length/height is negligible.

THEREFORE, a Charr standing on his toes would still come to the same relative change in height as a Norn doing the same.

“People don’t hate Scarlet the way Game of Thrones
fans hate Joffrey. They hate her the way Star Wars
fans hate Jar Jar Binks.”-not a direct quote, but still true.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Torrad.1075

Torrad.1075

Are you guys sure you’re not reading a little too much into some things here?

There isn’t actually very much to draw conclusions on. At least from my perspective, the rather minimalist description of the Charr push into Norn territory reads differently and somewhat less literally. It seems to me that the Charr saw a bunch of scattered, disorganized people, underestimated them and lost due to poor strategy and planning. But the emphasis on individual strength doesn’t have to imply that a Norn could wade into a bunch of charr and smite them all with impunity. It could just mean that despite a lack of central organization or tactical coordination, a bunch of them could still accomplish things against an organized enemy by being individually proficient. The one Norn = a whole Warband thing is only a result of taking some rather ambiguous wording literally. Is there anything that even implies the Norn were outnumbered?

A single decisive battle ending the affair tends to imply that Norn efforts were more substantial than skirmishes roaming hunters. Even if they don’t fight in coordinated ranks or have a command structure, they still could have gathered a number of folks to attack and destroy the incursion outright once it progressed too far. The Norn are an entire people, the idea that it would take an army to pacify them isn’t so far-fetched, particularly when it seems that any Norn can contribute something to a fight by virtue of their upbringing.

Individual anecdotes matter much less, I think. I’d only throw out that it seems that if strength is everything, then how did a bunch of comparatively wussy Ascalonian humans manage to fight charr throughout their long history of violence? It doesn’t seem that every open field battle ended in a massacre.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: LameFox.6349

LameFox.6349

Maybe it would help me if we restated our main point.

I suppose if I had to choose it would be something along the lines of finding the idea that these people continue to exist merely because they can run into a mob of attackers and brute-force their way through the encounter kind of ridiculous. While they have their heroes (living and historical) and possess impressive strength, they don’t – and I’m not referring to players – seem to present an average combat ability so astounding, unless we disregard not just player balance mechanics but the GW2 presentation of norn in general. That, or assume that for some reason they’re just weaker now.

…It seems to me that it is confirmed by the fact that less organized (call it less organized or comparatively unorganized makes no difference to me or the conversation from what I can see) norn with no standing army beat back a more organized and larger force of charr. So it makes no sense for one charr to tend to do better against the individual fighting habits of the norn when multiple charr have tended to fail. Be it due in large part to the immense strength difference or small part…

If I’m someone who lives as a hunter in what is more or less wilderness with scattered lodges and maybe the odd village, and probably have (or seek out, even) frequent encounters with hostile wildlife or just ‘hostiles’ in general, then yes, I would say that if new hostiles showed up there who were unfamiliar with the land, moved in groups making them easier for me to track, and were themselves probably targeting settlements or trade routes rather than trying to sweep a vast landscape for people like me, I’d have pretty good chances of inflicting notable damage even if I couldn’t fight one of these things face-to-face – and more likely in this case I’d at least be comparable.

For one thing, being familiar with the area means that once I realize what they’re up to, I can look at where they are, where they’re probably going at what rate, and know which routes would make sense to get there (since mountains, valleys, rivers, etc. get in the way a tad). There’s a good chance I know how to make traps, which I can put in places I think they’ll go for shelter or to pass difficult terrain, or maybe when they stop, between their camp and a source of clean water. If I wanted to be confrontational (and… norn, so probably) maybe I could ambush one or two of them, and lead any pursuers into my traps directly.

If I’m capable with a bow (or some other non-firearm ranged weapon we don’t get in-game), I also have a near-silent weapon with which I might wound or kill one from a distance, and be gone before they ever find out where I was. If it’s a smaller group and I’m fast or I get them at a really bad time, like crossing a river, that may well be the end of them then and there. Otherwise it’s a way to wear them down and harass them until they can’t continue, they reach a point where I can finish them off, or maybe I meet up with a friend (or friends) and we just rush the remainder of them with axes. This without even getting into magic.

Of course, there’s also the possibility we’re just measuring the Halla Corpseflayers (what ever happened to her anyway? Haven’t seen the event in months) who heard there was a fight to be had and showed up of their own free will against run-of-the-mill charr sent there on orders.

I don’t know what indicates organization beyond the fact that there were multiple norn in one place…

…Against an militarized species that train their whole life and didn’t just send “scouts” but war parties and raiding parties

‘Small organized forces’ was in reference to the charr warbands. I’m not sure why you take issue with war parties and raiding parties acting as scouts: the encounters between them and norn were described as skirmishes, which indicates something rather non-committed and mobile. Unless the norn specifically had some kind of supply the charr needed, raids like this would make sense as a way to learn about terrain and probe enemy defences/resistance.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

I suppose if I had to choose it would be something along the lines of finding the idea that these people continue to exist merely because they can run into a mob of attackers and brute-force their way through the encounter kind of ridiculous. While they have their heroes (living and historical) and possess impressive strength, they don’t – and I’m not referring to players – seem to present an average combat ability so astounding, unless we disregard not just player balance mechanics but the GW2 presentation of norn in general. That, or assume that for some reason they’re just weaker now.

This may be the source of out disagreement. I think we do have to disreguard player balance and mechanics because the races are only equal due to game mechanics. Even in-game representation hints at norn heroism. Now we can write all these accounts off as the norn living heroes but there seems to be an awful lot of living heroes with the entire society geared toward creating these heroes. And if the norn really aren’t as strong as they used to be, Id think it’s be a lore issue that we’d have heard about. Plus, we know norn have clear disadvanteges, like their lack of organization. So something is allowing them to maintain thir power as a people. Further proof of the presence of unequal lore is the strengths of each playable species. They all have their own specialties that all the other races don’t share with them.

If I’m someone who lives as a hunter in what is more or less wilderness with scattered lodges and maybe the odd village, and probably have (or seek out, even) frequent encounters with hostile wildlife or just ‘hostiles’ in general, then yes, I would say that if new hostiles showed up there who were unfamiliar with the land, moved in groups making them easier for me to track, and were themselves probably targeting settlements or trade routes rather than trying to sweep a vast landscape for people like me, I’d have pretty good chances of inflicting notable damage even if I couldn’t fight one of these things face-to-face – and more likely in this case I’d at least be comparable.

The very fist sentence of the Movement of the World is “Many expected the initial Charr expansion through northern Tyria to become a tide of blood that would crash upon the Shiverpeaks, drowning Charr and Norn alike.” This tells me the charr weren’t half hearting the invasion. and really, with all this talk about how military and viscious they are, why try to trivialize them by even suggesting it? it doesn’t make sense to me.

For one thing, being familiar with the area means that once I realize what they’re up to, I can look at where they are, where they’re probably going at what rate, and know which routes would make sense to get there (since mountains, valleys, rivers, etc. get in the way a tad). There’s a good chance I know how to make traps, which I can put in places I think they’ll go for shelter or to pass difficult terrain, or maybe when they stop, between their camp and a source of clean water. If I wanted to be confrontational (and… norn, so probably) maybe I could ambush one or two of them, and lead any pursuers into my traps directly.

Absolutely. But look at how Norn tend to move as one cohesive unit. Not often and only when they have been descimated already. Look how they responded to the Dragon threat. They thought only a few norn was plenty. And even then, “too much”.

If I’m capable with a bow (or some other non-firearm ranged weapon we don’t get in-game), I also have a near-silent weapon with which I might wound or kill one from a distance, and be gone before they ever find out where I was. If it’s a smaller group and I’m fast or I get them at a really bad time, like crossing a river, that may well be the end of them then and there. Otherwise it’s a way to wear them down and harass them until they can’t continue, they reach a point where I can finish them off, or maybe I meet up with a friend (or friends) and we just rush the remainder of them with axes. This without even getting into magic.

I agree with all of this. different tactics were porbably used depending on the personality and preference of the Norn involved.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

Of course, there’s also the possibility we’re just measuring the Halla Corpseflayers (what ever happened to her anyway? Haven’t seen the event in months) who heard there was a fight to be had and showed up of their own free will against run-of-the-mill charr sent there on orders.

It doesn’t seem to me that a-net was indicating that only exceptional Norbn heroes were involved. Like I said a few times, no matter how much we like to play devils advocate, a-nets intentions seem pretty clear. On the same note, how do we know the charr weren’t the best of the best against the weakest average norn? It doesn’t make sense to assume any of this.

‘Small organized forces’ was in reference to the charr warbands. I’m not sure why you take issue with war parties and raiding parties acting as scouts: the encounters between them and norn were described as skirmishes, which indicates something rather non-committed and mobile. Unless the norn specifically had some kind of supply the charr needed, raids like this would make sense as a way to learn about terrain and probe enemy defences/resistance.

I don’t take issue with them acting as scouts. I take issue with them limiting themselves to scouts when they are being attacked and their real purpose is war. Again, the expectation of the expansion becoming a “tide of blood” doesn’t seem to me that the charr were caught off guard thinking the norn would be an easy victory. War is what they train their whole lives for.

That said, I’d like to offer an alternate suggestion of how things played out. the charr moved in and attacked individual homesteads and settlements. Also, individual norn came across small warbands and raiding parties (who may well have been scouting) and decided to attack them (some using the tactics you illustrated above). This is all likely, given the habits of the norn. So this would be the “skirmishes”. The norn survivors of these skirmishes would have gone to meet the main force of charr probably picking up a few lone adventurers on the way. And this is what drove the main invasion force back in a single blow. But a mass exodus of norn to meet the charr doesn’t fit with the habits of the norn. So we still have a relatively smaller and relatively disorganized force beating the larger militarized and more organized force of the charr. And I doubt the charr half-hearting any invasion in their whole history. Which is pretty amazing and a good reason that both sides woukld respect each other. Especially since we know that the charr would have eventually won if they had even a whole Legion dedicated to the norn effort. But we know they had enough to reasonably expect a tide of blood.

To strengthen this suggestion, let’s look at out first encounter with the norn. Ogden Stone healer was extremely worried that Jora would kill Himslef a dwarf, vekk a venerated elementalist, the PC a renouned human hero, and their 3-7 hero allies in short order. because individual norn are known for testing themselves against great forces and winning. But their organization is their weakness. All races have a weakness and all races have a strength. Norn strength is in their individual fighting ability. And their herculean strength plays no small part, I’m sure. Granted, they aren’t all hulk smashing their way to victory (Eir is proof of this), but many of them do prefer melee weapons in their “hunts” as the game shows. While the ones that do prefer bows, use that great strength to greater results (also as Eir shows).

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

Are you guys sure you’re not reading a little too much into some things here?

There isn’t actually very much to draw conclusions on. At least from my perspective, the rather minimalist description of the Charr push into Norn territory reads differently and somewhat less literally. It seems to me that the Charr saw a bunch of scattered, disorganized people, underestimated them and lost due to poor strategy and planning. But the emphasis on individual strength doesn’t have to imply that a Norn could wade into a bunch of charr and smite them all with impunity. It could just mean that despite a lack of central organization or tactical coordination, a bunch of them could still accomplish things against an organized enemy by being individually proficient. The one Norn = a whole Warband thing is only a result of taking some rather ambiguous wording literally. Is there anything that even implies the Norn were outnumbered?

A single decisive battle ending the affair tends to imply that Norn efforts were more substantial than skirmishes roaming hunters. Even if they don’t fight in coordinated ranks or have a command structure, they still could have gathered a number of folks to attack and destroy the incursion outright once it progressed too far. The Norn are an entire people, the idea that it would take an army to pacify them isn’t so far-fetched, particularly when it seems that any Norn can contribute something to a fight by virtue of their upbringing.

Individual anecdotes matter much less, I think. I’d only throw out that it seems that if strength is everything, then how did a bunch of comparatively wussy Ascalonian humans manage to fight charr throughout their long history of violence? It doesn’t seem that every open field battle ended in a massacre.

Well, it seems clear the charr weren’t expecting it to be easy. But I agree that the norn didn’t just wade in and slaughter them with impunity. Norn definitely died. But their great strength coupled with their warrior upbringing was enough to allow them to win where their organization and command structure failed. So while strength isn’t verything, it is definatly a big factor. So there isn’t really that much we disagree on.

My whole point is that because their main strength lies in their individual ability, this would allow the norn to tend to win in one on one fights against a single charr. Not guaranteed, but the odds would be in norn favor. That’s the real point of this thread so all things I post relate back to that point.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Leo G.4501

Leo G.4501

And if a Norn stood on his tip toes too, he’d be taller than a Charr.
Charr are standing on their toes, you know this, right?

FALSE!

Charr have digitgrade legs. They are standing on the balls of their feet, not the toes.

Technically, you’re false. “Balls of your feet” is just an idiom. There is no actual anatomic structure call ‘ball’. If we’re getting technical, they are metatarsus joints but if we’re using layman’s terms to describe it, I don’t see much difference in calling it ‘balls of the feet’ and ‘toes’ in that respect.

Like humans, Norn are plantigrade, resting on the entire foot, including the heel. The difference is negligible because plantigrade creatures tend to have longer thigh and shin bones, making the overall leg longer, while digitgrade creatures tend to have an elongated foot, shorter thigh and shin bones, resulting in the mistaken impression that their legs are “backward”, which the are not.

It gives the mistaken impression that their knees bend backward, not their entire leg, if again, we’re being technical.

The overall difference between plantigrade and digitgrade legs as a portion of the body length/height is negligible.

Of course, the difference is that plantigrade can shift their body weight along the entirety of the foot, from the heel to the balls of the feet while digitigrade always walk on their digits/toes. Considering an average human male likely has a shoe size of 10 (US), Norn likely have shoe sizes in the 16-24 range, giving them over 12 in of extra height if they so need to reach for higher things, which can make a difference when considering absolute height.

THEREFORE, a Charr standing on his toes would still come to the same relative change in height as a Norn doing the same.

Charr are already standing on their toes! The only thing left to stand on is their claws and I highly doubt a Charr can balance on their claws, unlike unguligrade which have specially developed nails that are strong enough to support their weight.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Lucky.9421

Lucky.9421

There was a section in the novel, if I recall correctly, that Rytlock launched Eir far into the air as impromptu transportation(as well as the other characters). I got the impression from that scene that he, being the Charr, was the only one with the strength to do that.

Though I think it depends on what their weapons/skills were.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Drakkon.4782

Drakkon.4782

There was a section in the novel, if I recall correctly, that Rytlock launched Eir far into the air as impromptu transportation(as well as the other characters). I got the impression from that scene that he, being the Charr, was the only one with the strength to do that.

Though I think it depends on what their weapons/skills were.

And oddly, I came away from that scene thinking… “Well, the Charr are easily as strong as Norn. Take that, Eir.” Guess we all read into things what we want.

“People don’t hate Scarlet the way Game of Thrones
fans hate Joffrey. They hate her the way Star Wars
fans hate Jar Jar Binks.”-not a direct quote, but still true.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Leo G.4501

Leo G.4501

There was a section in the novel, if I recall correctly, that Rytlock launched Eir far into the air as impromptu transportation(as well as the other characters). I got the impression from that scene that he, being the Charr, was the only one with the strength to do that.

Though I think it depends on what their weapons/skills were.

And oddly, I came away from that scene thinking… “Well, the Charr are easily as strong as Norn. Take that, Eir.” Guess we all read into things what we want.

You could also take it as “Boo! Writers not giving women their proper dues! Eir didn’t do it because apparently it isn’t something the writer wanted a lady to do…”

I wonder if they made Eir a male and Rytlock a female, would the roles be reversed?

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Xkyline.5267

Xkyline.5267

There was a section in the novel, if I recall correctly, that Rytlock launched Eir far into the air as impromptu transportation(as well as the other characters). I got the impression from that scene that he, being the Charr, was the only one with the strength to do that.

Though I think it depends on what their weapons/skills were.

And oddly, I came away from that scene thinking… “Well, the Charr are easily as strong as Norn. Take that, Eir.” Guess we all read into things what we want.

You could also take it as “Boo! Writers not giving women their proper dues! Eir didn’t do it because apparently it isn’t something the writer wanted a lady to do…”

I wonder if they made Eir a male and Rytlock a female, would the roles be reversed?

Nah,being hardcore/physically brash with no deeper thoughts about consequences is a Blood Legion charr thing.EirTheDude would probably have found some intellectual way involving wisdom and kitten to get them to where ever it was…but who knows

‘Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak,
just because a baby can’t chew it’- Censored.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Lonewolf Kai.3682

Lonewolf Kai.3682

LOL @ some of the people in this thread: way too serious and way too bias!

I’d say they are equaled in GW2’s age and the fight could go either way. That’s basing it on the lore inside the GAME.

“Be like water” – Bruce Lee

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Drakkon.4782

Drakkon.4782

LOL @ some of the people in this thread: way too serious and way too bias!
I’d say they are equaled in GW2’s age and the fight could go either way. That’s basing it on the lore inside the GAME.

Exactly. Dustfinger and his pro-Norn ilk are reading far too much into the supposedly supernatural aspect of Norn physiology, and are basically equating a single Norn to Superman. If that was lore and even remotely true, why aren’t they ruling Kryta? Surely the humans can’t put up that much resistance, and conquering a nation would be both the ultimate hunt and the ultimate boasting story. But that kind of BS isn’t supported by the Lore, and even with the fanciful tall tales told during boasting matches at the Moot, no Norn could EVER back up fighting an entire Charr warband, head-on, in a straight up fight. Rhytlock would find out about the story and demand proof. The honor of the Legions would be at stake.

Charr are arguably the strongest warriors in all of Tyria. This is supported by both lore and game fact. Their strength doesn’t lie in their physical bodies, though they are powerful. It is in their ability to band together and fight as a cohesive unit. When the Charr stand together, no force in the world can oppose them. Granite walls only kept them at bay, and even the Elder Dragons couldn’t conquer them. The destroyed the human usurpers in Ascalon, struck such fear into the hearts of their enemies that one chose to kitten his entire kingdom to unending undead misery and another sank a continent into the sea to avoid being conquered. What are the Norn compared to that? Charr are boogymen. But at least their on your side, for now.

One on one, the game, the lore, and the mechanics all say the fight is even. No one race has an advantage over the others that isn’t countered or offset by the advantages of the other races. Personal biases aside, not even the flights of fancy written by people who work for ANet are support for one race being superior in a one on one fight.

But as a whole, Norn are drunken louts who would rather embellish their stories with grandiose exaggerations, and Charr don’t fight alone, so a one on one fight between a Charr and a Norn will never happen (at least outside of the Bane). If a Norn is foolish enough to fight an entire Warband, may the Spirits have mercy on his, for the Charr will have none. Scorch him.

“People don’t hate Scarlet the way Game of Thrones
fans hate Joffrey. They hate her the way Star Wars
fans hate Jar Jar Binks.”-not a direct quote, but still true.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

Well, since I back all my opinions up with lore while also listing the strengths of the charr and back them up with lore. It seems to me that people like Drakkon are just charr fanbois who can’t except that the charr have any disadvantages to anyone else. Drakkon keeps making statements about what the lore says without providing reference to support his view. Weak arguments remain weak.

So now he said their strength lies in their ability to stand together while saying that all the races are equal as game mechanics shows (LOL!) and then goes on to say that each race has it’s strengths that are countered by the strengths of the other races. When the entire discussion is dealing with the advantage that the norn posses over the other races. yet, before Drakkon said the charr were stronger than the norn and now says the strength of the charr doesn’t lie in their physical bodies, impressive though they are. Should have just let it go instead of continuing to try to change the goal post and wracking up all these inconsistencies. GG. When your wrong about the lore, accept it and you can be right the next time. Doesn’t make sense to flail around like you do. It looks foolish.

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Leo G.4501

Leo G.4501

Charr are arguably the strongest warriors in all of Tyria. This is supported by both lore and game fact. Their strength doesn’t lie in their physical bodies, though they are powerful. It is in their ability to band together and fight as a cohesive unit. When the Charr stand together, no force in the world can oppose them.

…but….the question asked who would win in a fight? A Charr or A Norn, not 10 Charr vs 1 Norn or even 10 Charr vs 10 Norn.

Basing the answer purely off what the lore would state, one of a Norn’s positive attributes is their extraordinary physical strength and their propensity to seek out challenges (usually on their own) to make a name for themselves.

To me, that implies if the challenge were to whoop a Charr’s behind, by golly a Norn would be dumb enough to take that challenge no matter how many eyes he gets gouged out or fingers/toes he’d lose.

On the other hand, the positive attributes of the Charr seem to be their militant superiority which has to do with their technology, their teamwork and their determination. Whatever obstacle gets in their way, they will find away through it, no matter how many Charr it would take. However, that sort of invalidates the question. This isn’t about how many Charr it takes to fight a Norn because it’s asking about one Charr…and likely without his cannons, hidden pistols, mines and tanks.

But none of it matters to me. I’m not one to laud over a specific race. But if we’re talking about equality of the race specialties and flaws, it makes sense a Charr would be less physically comparable to a Norn because Norn do not band together in armies while the Charr do and Norn are the most behind in technological advancements while the Charr are tied as the most technologically advanced.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Drakkon.4782

Drakkon.4782

But none of it matters to me. I’m not one to laud over a specific race. But if we’re talking about equality of the race specialties and flaws, it makes sense a Charr would be less physically comparable to a Norn because Norn do not band together in armies while the Charr do and Norn are the most behind in technological advancements while the Charr are tied as the most technologically advanced.

Then this should have been asked in the Lore forum and not the Charr forum. The Charr rule here, meat, and pro-Norn attitudes will not prevail. We will, however, allow you to retreat from this battle and lick your wounds. You fought well.

“People don’t hate Scarlet the way Game of Thrones
fans hate Joffrey. They hate her the way Star Wars
fans hate Jar Jar Binks.”-not a direct quote, but still true.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

@ Leo G: There are charr fans here who can appreciate all the lore and address the actual thread. That said, I think the thread question has been answered in detail by the fans of actual charr lore here.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Brutalistik.6473

Brutalistik.6473

It’ll be draw because both will end up having a beer drink contest.

Pineapples

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Lonewolf Kai.3682

Lonewolf Kai.3682

Basing this on in-game lore, I think the Norn are full of B S……. Boasting Skills. Seriously though, my Norn’s “legend” is a joke, especially if killing a large worm is “legend”-worthy, and especially considering you get help from other people. It makes you wonder about all those other Norn “legends” as well.

Besides that, the Charr would automatically win the fight at the start. Why? Because the Norn would be passed out drunk.

Actually now that I think about it, neither would win. The Norn would be drunk and the Charr would be too busy nawing on meat from the Meatoberfest!

“Be like water” – Bruce Lee

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Leo G.4501

Leo G.4501

Charr get drunk too.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Lonewolf Kai.3682

Lonewolf Kai.3682

Charr get drunk too.

I’m gonna respond to this by quoting my own post:
“LOL @ some of the people in this thread: way too serious and way too bias!”

Emphasis on the way too serious

Joke (noun):
1b: (1): the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2): an instance of jesting.
2: something not to be taken seriously : a trifling matter.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/joke

“Be like water” – Bruce Lee

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Leo G.4501

Leo G.4501

How is that comment serious or bias?

The only possible serious point in my posts is that when I post, I roleplay as a person who knows and speaks to these races of Tyria while others roleplay as one of the races of Tyria.

To say I’m bias or favor Norn when I don’t even have any Norn friends (alts) is reaching. I much prefer the company of Asura, Charr and Humans (although I have 2 Sylvari alts too). If anyone’s being too serious, it might be you Charr (that roleplay as one and take everyone else as a stiff that can’t comprehend such a notion). Next thing I hear will be you giving flack to Legionnaires who hang out with humans. It’s all Renegade propaganda and you’re too blind to see it!

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Scoobaniec.9561

Scoobaniec.9561

Charr are bigger? Not according to in-game mechanics. The tallest Norn is taller than the tallest Charr. In lore, Norn are giants but were downscaled for the game’s mechanics.

Nope. Tallest norn and tallest charr are just about the same size… and the charr is hunching over.

That’s natural for charr mind you, but if he puts himself straight up (such as with /salute)… he could end up being be a head or two taller.

And if a Norn stood on his tip toes too, he’d be taller than a Charr.

Charr are standing on their toes, you know this, right?

Yep.. its not like they dont stand this way naturally on feets.

Attachments:

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Lonewolf Kai.3682

Lonewolf Kai.3682

How is that comment serious or bias?

The only possible serious point in my posts is that when I post, I roleplay as a person who knows and speaks to these races of Tyria while others roleplay as one of the races of Tyria.

To say I’m bias or favor Norn when I don’t even have any Norn friends (alts) is reaching. I much prefer the company of Asura, Charr and Humans (although I have 2 Sylvari alts too). If anyone’s being too serious, it might be you Charr (that roleplay as one and take everyone else as a stiff that can’t comprehend such a notion). Next thing I hear will be you giving flack to Legionnaires who hang out with humans. It’s all Renegade propaganda and you’re too blind to see it!

Thank you for proving my point, and at the same time missing it altogether.

/facepalm

“Be like water” – Bruce Lee

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Drakkon.4782

Drakkon.4782

Technically, you’re false. “Balls of your feet” is just an idiom. There is no actual anatomic structure call ‘ball’. If we’re getting technical, they are metatarsus joints but if we’re using layman’s terms to describe it, I don’t see much difference in calling it ‘balls of the feet’ and ‘toes’ in that respect.

FALSE!

After a little research, you are incorrect. The ball of the foot is the point on the bottom of your foot (the part that corresponds to the palm, not the fingers) where, if you place your weight forward of it, you are putting your weight on your toes, and if you put your weight behind it, you’re putting pressure on your heel. Literally put, it is the balance point for the foot, but does not, specifically, define standing on one’s toes. It is typically characterized by the large round muscular mass behind the big toe, from which it draws it’s name. In felines, this area is specifically the pad of the foot. This is where the weight of the cat rests, and not on the toes. Toes are for balance, quick changes in direction, and for getting a better grip on a surface. They are not, even in felines, load bearing.

They are NOT standing on their toes.

“People don’t hate Scarlet the way Game of Thrones
fans hate Joffrey. They hate her the way Star Wars
fans hate Jar Jar Binks.”-not a direct quote, but still true.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Leo G.4501

Leo G.4501

Technically, you’re false. “Balls of your feet” is just an idiom. There is no actual anatomic structure call ‘ball’. If we’re getting technical, they are metatarsus joints but if we’re using layman’s terms to describe it, I don’t see much difference in calling it ‘balls of the feet’ and ‘toes’ in that respect.

FALSE!

After a little research, you are incorrect. The ball of the foot is the point on the bottom of your foot (the part that corresponds to the palm, not the fingers) where, if you place your weight forward of it, you are putting your weight on your toes, and if you put your weight behind it, you’re putting pressure on your heel. Literally put, it is the balance point for the foot, but does not, specifically, define standing on one’s toes. It is typically characterized by the large round muscular mass behind the big toe, from which it draws it’s name. In felines, this area is specifically the pad of the foot. This is where the weight of the cat rests, and not on the toes. Toes are for balance, quick changes in direction, and for getting a better grip on a surface. They are not, even in felines, load bearing.

They are NOT standing on their toes.

Heh, why not simply look at a digitigrade skeletal structure?

http://www.eurocatfancy.de/en1/nav/about-cats/cat-anatomy/images/skeleton_cat_en.jpg

http://www.dcfirst.com/posters/CatSkeletonAnatomyChart.jpg

http://www.cat-talk-101.com/images/colored_digitigrade.jpg

Key note to take away from this is Phalanx = Phalanges = Digits = Toes. Digitigrade animals only walk on their toes, no other structure in their foot. And remember, toes have joints. Toes are not the last bone in a digit.

http://www.longwhiteclouds.co.nz/images/cat.jpg

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Drakkon.4782

Drakkon.4782

The weight of the cat is still behind the toes, not on them. All that weight rests on the pad, not the toe tips. You’re still failing to make your point, here. All your evidence supports my statements.

“People don’t hate Scarlet the way Game of Thrones
fans hate Joffrey. They hate her the way Star Wars
fans hate Jar Jar Binks.”-not a direct quote, but still true.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Drakenvold.9761

Drakenvold.9761

the taller and toes part of the discussion is being silly imho,its not a contest to see who is taller or who is standing straight,its a 1vs1 fight

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Leo G.4501

Leo G.4501

The weight of the cat is still behind the toes, not on them. All that weight rests on the pad, not the toe tips. You’re still failing to make your point, here. All your evidence supports my statements.

You’re not understanding how the anatomy works then. Toes have joints in them. For humans, it’s 2 joints in all but the big toe.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TUmrEJJqV_Q/S7quSvCfV1I/AAAAAAAAP_A/nevlsUAk7NI/s400/foot_bones_lateral.png

For cats, it’s 3 joints except the joint at the end of the toe turns back into the foot (retractable claws). The pads of a cat’s foot cover the 2 toe bones that form the toes. To say all the weight rests on the pad is synonymous as saying it’s on the toes because the pads rest directly under middle and proximal phalanx.

Or are you only counting the end of the toe as the toe?

Where the pad ends is just before where the metetarsal begins. To link ‘ball of the foot’ and metatarsal bones, the ball of the foot would be considered the metatarsal joint.

The weight of the body is distributed throughout the foot, that’s why there is a bend between the middle and proximal phalanx. When pressure is applied by the body, it straightens, widening the toes. Conversely, the other parts of the foot bend (metatarsal, ankle and further up the knee) when weight bears on them.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Leo G.4501

Leo G.4501

PS: Here’s an experiment for you. Stand on the balls of your feet like you normally would with your legs nearly straight.

After that, keep standing on the balls of your feet but bend your knees while keeping your back straight. Now remember that digitigrade animals do walk with their knees bent kind of forward…it’s to shift their body weight off of the ‘balls of their feet’ and onto their toes.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Brutalistik.6473

Brutalistik.6473

Guys I don’t think we need to go into depths about a simple discussion about a norn fighting a charr. It all depends how the fight goes and from what I remember norn has more brute strength than a charr, but charr has the advantages due to claws. It will be a close fight and one will come out victor while both will be incredibly injured or dead due to too much damage intake/ loss of blood. Pretty much a double K.O

Pineapples

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Leo G.4501

Leo G.4501

But I’m enjoying the discussion. I get to use some of those anatomy lessons I learned in highschool and my early figure drawing courses :-P

And I also get the chance to tell a Charr to take off her armor for the sake of study. Still haven’t touched that tail yet