Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's bloodbowl! It's not supposed to make any sense. We're talking about an alternate universe where all of the world's disputes are settled through a ball game.

Of course not, why do think they're always fighting?

illuknisaa wrote:Ok. but how do you explain why ork refer themselves as boyz as that is clearly a human term (eldar don't say their children are boys or girls). Orks also lack orginal language they mainly speak orkish english. If it possible that humans were created from orks by the old ones?

eg in fallout universe supermutants are made from human but are considered instead metahumans. So is it possible that humans are a subspecies desendent from orks?

Kapitan Montag wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: Orks ... dont have a need to eat, they just enjoy it. Orks are accually photosynthetic (sunlight gives them nourishment) That makes them Billions of years behind humans on the evolutionary scale.

OK I know it's all made up and all (and a bit OT) but I have two problems with this.

I don't think that orks would gain enough energy by photosynthesis alone to do all the things they need to do. Think about how much a plant does in a day, compared to how much an ork or human might do. I think they have to get extra energy from food.

Also, being able to photosynthesise wouldn't make them 'behind' humans on the evolutionary scale. I think that way of looking at evolution (as a linear progression from basic to more complex organisms) is incorrect. For example you might say a shark is 'less evolved' than a human because it is warm blooded, and doesn't have calcified bones, but in terms of it's niche it is perfectly adapted.

I agree with Kapitan about the linear evolution chain, but if you read illuknisaa's post, he thinks that humans could be decended from orks, thus making it a linear chain. That was my argument sir

illuknisaa wrote:Ok. but how do you explain why ork refer themselves as boyz as that is clearly a human term (eldar don't say their children are boys or girls). Orks also lack orginal language they mainly speak orkish english.

Untrue.

Orks primarily speak Ork, which is a language of its own. They often know how to speak (low) Imperial Gothic as well. Both the Ork language and the Ork pronunciation of Imperial Gothic are represented by pidgin English with some Ork words thrown in (they usually pronounce Imperial Gothic awkwardly on account of having tusks, although there are some exceptions, such as Nazdreg).

The reason Eldar probably wouldn't say "boys" or "girls" isn't because there aren't boys or girls in Eldar society (there are), but because the Eldar language and Imperial Gothic spoken by Eldar are both represented by sophisticated sounding English with few Eldar words thrown in (mostly "Mon-keigh").

English (and Latin) are not actually spoken in 40k. They're just representations of other languages. Someone from this time would find Gothic as foreign of a language as Ork.

Gogsnik wrote:According to Xenology orks have no reproductive anatomy nor need any and the diagram shows an ork with no genatalia.

So how do they use the bathroom with no "genatalia"? The orks don't need to have genatalia as we know it, but they have to have some offrice to get rid of waste.

Who says they have waste? I imagine they're very efficient. Do they even need to eat? Can't they just photosynthesize? Perhaps their "waste" is oxygen.

Fungus don't photosynthesis right they leech off of otehr plants right? which is why their not green.
so does that make orc/ks plants of some sort

Go on, Orkeosaurus . . . oh, he's off now. Here ya go, chappy!

Coincidentally, that also solves the thread if Lexicanum is to be believed.

In one of the space wolf novels ragnar's claw fought orks and there was a part when ragner was almost discovered by a Ork who was "peeing". I don't know if that would be consider cannon, but if an ork can pee it has to come out of something espeically if he can aim it far enough to land on the armor of a space wolf.

BL authors do just about whatever they want. See my sig.

Manchu wrote:Coincidentally, that also solves the thread if Lexicanum is to be believed.

I don't know if I'd hold Lexicanum in that high of a regard.

It mostly seems to be a compilation of what's posted in places like this.



Also, the symbiont Orks are involved with probably can't be considered a true "fungus" or "plant"; seeing as how it's an alien lifeform, it doesn't need to fit into a Terran category. Perhaps the "fungi" associated with Orks can both consume other organic materials and sunlight, like some protists can. That would fit in with the theme of hardiness and redundancy the Orkoids seem to have.

i just thought that all fluff aside, that orks/orcs are the roach of the 40k world and as such you stomp on them and the spores spread. Then you have hundreds of roa.. I mean orks roaming about. Plus GW has said that they steal dna and mix it in their pods for the next generation. So why not have both asexual and male/female orks from time to time. You never know what might spawn on a giving planet. With their flexibility i can see them doing anything to survive even if it meant growing b@lls and raping the nearest female to spawn a mess load of greenskins that are meat eaters/plants.

I have never heard of them mixing DNA like that, I know kroot do. Maybe orks are eunechs.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Also, the symbiont Orks are involved with probably can't be considered a true "fungus" or "plant"; seeing as how it's an alien lifeform, it doesn't need to fit into a Terran category.

That's an interesting point. All things being equal (chemical processes working the same way throughout the galaxy, Orks being carbon-based), do you think our taxonomical system would really be insufficient especially given the increasing reliance on genetics rather than structure to inform categorization?

GW used to do several female orc characters. There was a whole range of villagers including female orcs with children.

Here we go.

http://www.solegends.com/citcat88/0508orcs.jpg

Manchu wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Also, the symbiont Orks are involved with probably can't be considered a true "fungus" or "plant"; seeing as how it's an alien lifeform, it doesn't need to fit into a Terran category.

That's an interesting point. All things being equal (chemical processes working the same way throughout the galaxy, Orks being carbon-based), do you think our taxonomical system would really be insufficient especially given the increasing reliance on genetics rather than structure to inform categorization?

There's nothing wrong with the reasoning behind taxonomy, but it would be wrong to shoehorn orks into the current Terran structure of Fungi or Plants. Being of another world they aren't remotely related to Earth borne organisms. Organisms sharing the same Kingdom, Order or Genus are related in some fashion, even distantly and in theory can be traced back to a shared ancestor. Orks have been created and evolved entirely seperately from that. They aren't like plants or fungi in anything more than a superficial manner, so while GW may say that they are most similar to fungi, they would have to be classified as something totally seperate from a biological viewpoint. To actually slot them into the Terran Kingdom of fungi or plants on the basis of shared characteristis would be akin to classifying a bat alongside birds because they can both fly. It would also imply a shared hereditry which they don't have. So should they discover life on other worlds in real life, they will probably have to create a totally seperate taxonomic tree for mapping kingdoms, orders, species etc. Unless they can prove life seeded on one planet from another.

Shared heredity may be the wrong way to look at things, an evolutionary-centric perspective and thus the very Terra-centric attitude you're trying to avoid. We commonly think of organisms being more or less related in the quanta of evolutionary "developments" themselves measured (or traced) through genetics. The presumption is, of course, that there is some common ancestor from which all other life forms on earth descend. You're right to point out that this relational paradigm wouldn't be up to describing life elsewhere in the galaxy. However, wouldn't it stand to reason--again, given that physics and chemistry deal in universal rather than local phenomena--that our taxonomical organization, insofar as it is based on structures and processes would still be rather helpful. Anaerobic metabolism is still anaerobic metabolism on Cadia, for example. Now, understanding this we can then critique our assumptions about the way genetics and structure are related in taxonomy: rather than looking at genetics as the genealogical key to evolutionary relatedness, consider it in terms of the "blueprint" metaphor. What does the genetic material tell us about what the subject is? A genetic sequence that provides for the eukaryotic structure, for example, will be the same no matter in what part of the galaxy it occurs. Basically, whatever the staggering vastness of biodiversity on Earth or beyond, I am just saying that there are only so many ways in which life is possible in its essential processes. Yes, we end up saying "orks are rather more like X than they are like Y" but that is how all taxonomy goes.

Orks are lacking a penis, and, consequently, feel very frustrated and needing of some sort of release of their pent up tension all the time.

That's why they fight so much.

Manchu wrote:Yes, we end up saying "orks are rather more like X than they are like Y" but that is how all taxonomy goes.

I suppose that just depends on how widely you want the definitions to apply.

I mean, as an extreme example, you could say a carpet is more like a mammal, and a hardwood floor is more like a reptile. Obviously no one would say these actually fit in those classifications, though.

On the other hand, saying that a Wookie is a mammal would probably be acceptable. They certainly seem close enough to what's currently in the class.

Well, to tear down the rest of the fourth and fifth walls (takes off xenobiologist glasses and labcoat), orks didn't come from some other place in our galaxy or beyond but rather directly out of the imaginations of fellow Earthmen.

But that's no fun. (Puts on Inquisitorial hat and duster.) Now let's burn all the xeno-sympathizing heretics who've the faithless temerity to bring up this ridiculous topic!

Manchu wrote:Well, to tear down the rest of the fourth and fifth walls (takes off xenobiologist glasses and labcoat), orks didn't come from some other place in our galaxy or beyond but rather directly out of the imaginations of fellow Earthmen.

But that's no fun. (Puts on Inquisitorial hat and duster.) Now let's burn all the xeno-sympathizing heretics who've the faithless temerity to bring up this ridiculous topic!

HEAR HEAR or HERE HERE
either way burn the heretics!!

Manchu wrote:A genetic sequence that provides for the eukaryotic structure, for example, will be the same no matter in what part of the galaxy it occurs. Basically, whatever the staggering vastness of biodiversity on Earth or beyond, I am just saying that there are only so many ways in which life is possible in its essential processes. Yes, we end up saying "orks are rather more like X than they are like Y" but that is how all taxonomy goes.

Well perhaps not. Life on other worlds may have developed an entirely different self-replicated molecule. Obviously we know of DNA, but who knows how many other combinations of atoms would create a similarly functioning molecule that works in a similar manner to our DNA? Problem with this argument, is that we have no sample group from which to draw probabilities, we are the only planet we've explored. It's incredibly difficult to recreate the primordial conditions in a lab to sucessfully "create" DNA from base materials so we can't really put a figure on the probability of DNA coming into existance in the first place, let alone surmise what equivalent could be created on other worlds.

Orks don't have gender, but I bet they still hump stuff.

I imagine them tea-bagging fallen opponents like a 12-year-old on Halo 3.

RxGhost wrote:Orks don't have gender, but I bet they still hump stuff.

I imagine them tea-bagging fallen opponents like a 12-year-old on Halo 3.

(Oh, and...Shudder...)

It's more than just sharing similar traits. On earth, feathers are considered the ultimate representation of a bird, and that works for all currently living creatures. But it isn't the be all and end all. For something to be a bird, it also needs certain structures in the hip, in the shoulder region, certain fusing of long bones etc. Which is why certain dinosaurs with feathers are classified as being related to birds, but are no birds themselves.

Extending this logic, kroot clearly have quill like structures which would relate most easily to feathers. Kroot are not birds, however, because of other major anatomical differences. Yet birds (or possibly the aforementioned dinosaurs) are STILL the closest taxonomical group we could put them in. Genetics isn't going to change that.

And sharks have more uncoding 'waste' DNA than 10%.

I do not think orks have sex in the human/earthling sense. Reproducing by the release of spores as reaction to violence done to the body, the very height of sex for an ork would be getting blown to bits by a Space Marine Autocannon, or getting sliced to ribbons by an Eldar shuriken catapult.

Every psychological urge for pleasure, from sex or food or anything else, Orks get from battle.

My thoughts are in two parts here

Do 40K orks have sex?
No.
Orks (with a "k") do not have intercourse. It is a definite part of the background that Orks reproduce aesexualy by releasing spores.

Do WHFB Orcs have sex?
Probably.
It is poor logic to asume that Orcs (with a "c") reproduce in the same way as Orks (with a "K"). As far as I can tell, WHFB happens on one planet, and a species like the Orcs that reproduces through spores would have swiftly infested the entire planet, and would be impossible to stop with the level of technology available in the WHFB universe, as often happens in the 40K universe.. Therefore, it can be assumed that Orcs either
A. Are Hermaphroditic, therefore explaining why they all look the same, or
B. Do not allow women or children to fight.
Or this is simply a case of GW being lazy.

They have infested the planet in Warhammer Fantasy; but there's no reason why the spores of 40k and Fantasy would need to be equally fertile.