Active Users:619 Time:02/08/2025 08:49:44 PM
An annoying gateway error. rAndy aL Send a noteboard - 24/12/2010 04:52:54 AM
Err... another one.

Mat and Elayne's plan to kill the gholam relied on forcing it through a gateway. Ignoring the question of whether it should be able to survive a gateway or not, there is still a hole in the plan to make the gateway in the first place.

They hoped that the gholam would not notice the gateway if it was opened from "the other side" (in this case, the skimming place). The problem is that the place for this ambush was no pre-planned, so there is no way that one of the Aes Sedai or Kin could have Skimmed to that place.

The plan is broken, but not irrevocably so. All attempts of hiding the gateway by opening it from the other side would have to be abandoned (not that it did any good anyway). Hell, the gholam would probably charge right through a gateway if it saw an Aes Sedai trying to escape through it.
Reply to message
An annoying gateway error. - 24/12/2010 04:52:54 AM 2253 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error. - 24/12/2010 10:23:23 AM 1386 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error. - 24/12/2010 03:41:10 PM 1203 Views
I dissagree - 24/12/2010 07:09:41 PM 1186 Views
Yes, RJ confirmed that Shadowspawn can't survive gateways. *NM* - 24/12/2010 07:39:02 PM 518 Views
And then BS confirmed that gholam are "more perfected" Shadowspawn which can. *NM* - 24/12/2010 08:35:34 PM 518 Views
Read the post I responded too. I know that. - 26/12/2010 11:58:40 AM 1090 Views
Why would them not being able to survive a gateway be a problem? - 26/01/2011 05:36:09 AM 913 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error. - 24/12/2010 11:29:33 AM 1113 Views
What he said. No error. *NM* - 24/12/2010 01:01:23 PM 486 Views
"They had not known where-or if-the gholam would attack him" - 25/12/2010 12:27:02 AM 1124 Views
Re: "They had not known where-or if-the gholam would attack him" - 25/12/2010 02:05:07 AM 1030 Views
They prepared a place, and it just happened to be within walking distance of the attack? - 25/12/2010 09:44:34 AM 1067 Views
Please re-read the chapter. It expalins a lot. - 25/12/2010 04:05:50 PM 1073 Views
Your quote shows what happened. - 26/12/2010 05:33:44 AM 1044 Views
Likely picked from a handful of pre-determined locations based on where and when the attack occurred - 31/12/2010 08:47:20 PM 1048 Views
Perhaps, but I don't think so. - 01/01/2011 01:19:12 AM 883 Views
That would be an error if it hadn't been Skimming (the platform and what not) they were using. - 25/12/2010 02:29:39 AM 969 Views
It is an error because they opened a skimming gateway to the house (from the skimming place) - 25/12/2010 09:47:08 AM 1031 Views
Gateways - 25/12/2010 12:20:13 PM 936 Views
Re: Gateways - 26/12/2010 02:20:14 AM 1031 Views
Re: Gateways - 26/12/2010 03:53:05 AM 877 Views
Re: Gateways - 26/12/2010 05:16:48 AM 1164 Views
I'm confused now as to what you're arguing. They knew the location of the house. - 26/12/2010 08:54:17 PM 948 Views
You need to know more than just where you are going - 27/12/2010 06:59:21 AM 1036 Views
Please find me a supporting quote in one of the books. - 27/12/2010 12:48:45 PM 988 Views
Re: Please find me a supporting quote in one of the books. - 27/12/2010 03:11:26 PM 882 Views
Skimming - 27/12/2010 06:24:12 PM 944 Views
Well, from Encyclopaedia WOT, and aCoS - 28/12/2010 01:02:42 AM 1143 Views
Not that hard if you think about it - 30/01/2011 09:39:34 PM 1009 Views
get over it - 25/12/2010 06:20:14 PM 911 Views
ok? *NM* - 26/12/2010 02:21:24 AM 603 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error. - 24/12/2010 12:22:38 PM 1102 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error. - 24/12/2010 06:22:54 PM 870 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error. - 24/12/2010 06:31:38 PM 880 Views
Very good point. Thank you for clearing that up! *NM* - 24/12/2010 09:50:47 PM 467 Views
Wrong - 24/12/2010 10:03:26 PM 1060 Views
Re: Wrong - 24/12/2010 11:49:12 PM 1031 Views
Re: Wrong - 25/12/2010 02:59:55 AM 955 Views
Re: Wrong - 25/12/2010 09:51:54 AM 971 Views
Re: Wrong - 27/12/2010 06:34:39 PM 961 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error. - 31/12/2010 08:44:17 PM 989 Views

Reply to Message