Active Users:870 Time:01/11/2025 05:52:08 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
we will just have to agree to disagree then. Apsalar Shadowdancer Send a noteboard - 27/10/2010 03:51:41 AM
Please explain why you think what you do and provide some evidence to support your case. Otherwise you are just making crap up to fit your own interpretation.


Ignoring your cheap shot at his character/motivations, what you consider your "evidence" is not at all conclusive.

Incidentally, and I know professors don't like to see students use it as a source, according to Wikipedia:

"The real danger of balefire, however, is that it can undo (or erase) the past actions of anyone it hits... Balefire has different effects based on what it hits. For living beings, a mere touch seems to be enough to wipe the entire being from existence. For normal structures and objects, it seems to destroy only what it touches."

Most other online sources I've searched all seem to say pretty much the same thing about balefire: "When it encounters anything living, that thing is instantly destroyed, and depending on the strength of the beam, the thread of that thing is burned back in time, which may result in undoing things which it has done."
Reply to message
Prologue: A Question on Gateways Night Walker - 25/10/2010 07:33:23 PM 1626 Views
I was wondering this myself *NM* Sidious - 25/10/2010 08:23:57 PM 457 Views
I'm thinking it got overlooked... *NM* Night Walker - 25/10/2010 08:35:31 PM 434 Views
I'm inclined to agree, but there are other possibilities Sidious - 25/10/2010 08:48:01 PM 1023 Views
Seems pretty obvious to me that she released it (and was holding it) before the BF hit it darius_sedai - 26/10/2010 04:40:04 AM 895 Views
Balefire's reversal of actions taken only works on living things that can perform said actions. TaskmasterJack - 25/10/2010 09:36:46 PM 1082 Views
Agreed. I think Graendal's weave is only undone if the BF hits her, not the gateway *NM* newyorkersedai - 25/10/2010 10:48:07 PM 385 Views
*nods* *NM* RugbyPlayingAshaman - 26/10/2010 05:08:20 PM 386 Views
thats not true Apsalar Shadowdancer - 26/10/2010 01:18:16 AM 939 Views
It is true. Objects do not have threads that can be affected by balefire. TaskmasterJack - 26/10/2010 01:56:48 AM 989 Views
Re: It is true. Objects do not have threads that can be affected by balefire. car'a'aman - 26/10/2010 04:55:20 AM 925 Views
This will sound bad to say and I realize it sounds more petulant than it is... TaskmasterJack - 27/10/2010 02:31:33 AM 1062 Views
here is the quote from the sceen, it is not confusing, you were just to lazy to read it. Apsalar Shadowdancer - 26/10/2010 07:24:19 AM 918 Views
I don't agree Skeeve the Great - 26/10/2010 12:08:41 PM 1015 Views
so you think it made the hole in the boat back in time to allow the water into the boat Apsalar Shadowdancer - 26/10/2010 06:25:37 PM 992 Views
Re: Balefire TaskmasterJack - 27/10/2010 03:02:39 AM 1071 Views
we will just have to agree to disagree then. Apsalar Shadowdancer - 27/10/2010 03:51:41 AM 951 Views
sceen=scene, yes? And I didn't mean confusing to me. I meant to others. It's always been clear to me TaskmasterJack - 27/10/2010 02:51:41 AM 1083 Views
A weave should be destroyed Sidious - 26/10/2010 10:19:13 AM 847 Views
Re: A weave should be destroyed Skeeve the Great - 26/10/2010 12:03:16 PM 927 Views
That has more to do with the nature of both weaves RugbyPlayingAshaman - 26/10/2010 05:07:48 PM 788 Views
I agree darius_sedai - 26/10/2010 05:32:57 PM 816 Views
Thank you for reminding us of the scene, but it doesn't sell me completely. TaskmasterJack - 27/10/2010 02:28:00 AM 1088 Views
*nods* RugbyPlayingAshaman - 26/10/2010 05:05:12 PM 881 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes