Active Users:414 Time:27/04/2024 03:07:44 AM
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 Sidious Send a noteboard - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM

According to RJ, Moiraine is now at level 66 after being rescued by the Finns. I get it, it's his story. However, now is the time to be academic and playful and point out a few things. All of these numbers are based on my previous theory lower down on the board of the channelers and their actual strengths.

With this in mind, let us look at previous angreal multipliers and their comparative powers. I say multipliers because we know that the stronger you are, the more the angreal gives you, and therefore it's not like an angreal can give anyone '20' saidar. It gives you more if you are strong and less is you are weak.

  1. Graendal's angreal is considered by her to be 'weak' but it pushes her ability up 'into the male levels'. However, a woman like Graendal (effective strength 98.5) with male level strength has an effective strength that exceeds 100. This angreal probably makes her at the most 10-20% stronger than she was, as she says that it would surprise someone who thinks they know her potential.

  2. Cadsuane's angreal gives her a strength of ++1, but was considered by the Companion to be 'not powerful'. Once again ++1 exceeds 100 in strength if it is carried by a woman, so if we assume that a ++1 male holds 120 saidin then her effective strength was 120 and the angreal made her 38% stronger.

  3. With the turtle brooch angreal Elayne can hold twice as much as Nynaeve. The multiplier is thus 2.2x. Amazingly, Elayne does also not consider this to be a strong angreal.

  4. A woman clothed in her hair angreal makes Aviendha almost twice as strong as she usually is, and is the weakest angreal they found. The multiplier is thus about 1.9x.

These are all high strength females, and we know that you gain more from an angreal if you are stronger. We do not know how much more. However we can state that for strong women (Cadsuane and more) we can give the following rough guidelines...

  • weak : small push from your original strength.
  • average : a good boost but up to double your strength.
  • strong : more than double your strength.

We know that it's probably difficult to challenge more than 3x your strength so it seems like their strongest angreal (the gold bracelet rings) could not have provided Alivia with such a high multiplier considering she could not smother Cyndane. Therefore their strongest angreal also probably fell into the 220-300% range.

We don't know how average channelers compare to this. However, it seems like the advantage isn't major. Elayne says that Nynaeve could 'do better still' and it's unlikely angreal were considered weak for Elayne but strong for average women, or she would have no reference considering her rare strength. By this I mean how could Elayne call an angreal 'not strong' if it made her twice as strong as Nynaeve... clearly average Aes Sedai gain similar multipliers, but slightly less. Before this we never saw Elayne engage the topic so clearly she has been taught about angreal and exposed to them as a novice. "Girls, this is a weak angreal" etc.

With this in mind it's likely that someone like Nynaeve would not gain much more out of an angreal than a normal Aes Sedai, but this is conjecture.

If you look at sa'angreal then we can see a similar trend. By definition a sa'angreal must give you a benefit above what you would get from an angreal, than you would get from an angreal compared to being unaided. Therefore if a strong angreal trebles your power, then a sa'angreal needs to multiply your strength by about 6x to fit the definition. Anything between 3x to 6x is considered a grey area of 'very strong angreal' and 'weak sa'angreal'.

Moiraine at level 66 has an effective strength in the Power of about 1.5 (out of 100). She says that with the angreal she will be stronger than she was before - very strong (Towers of Midnight, A Rabbit for Supper). We don't know how strong this is, but we'll take very strong to be on Egwene's level, as this has never been contested as superlative strength and exceeds Moiraine (anything between Therava and Lanfear is a possibility). This equals a strength level of 8, or 88.5. We also know that this angreal is close to sa'angreal in strength (Towers of Midnight, The Light of the World). Therefore for the angreal to boost her strength from 1.5 to 88.5 it will provide her with a multiplier of 59. This goes against all the trends in previous angreal multipliers, and places her bracelet on the level of Callandor (see later). But we know that this isn't a sa'angreal... we know from this Finns that it's close.

Now, Moiraine says that she's too weak to be Accepted but she can light a fire. This seems to make her as strong as Sorilea - truly weak but functional on level 57. Therefore her effective strength would be 15, and the angreal would multiply her strength by 5.9. This is exactly on the border between strong angreal and sa'angreal.

Now remember that Lanfear used this angreal against Rand so she would have had a strength of at least 590 to draw upon. Considering stronger women get more, she may have gained much more. Rand said that with his angreal he could shield seven women (strength 350 average), so he would have needed at least 350 and probably more to claim this, and to stand against Lanfear. He describes her shields as getting stronger and stronger so it's likely her strong angreal was used as she needed, and likely overpowered him. That said, the fact that Lanfear could not instantly overwhelm Rand is proof that his angreal isn't meager, and that she did not overwhelm him by 3x his strength. Even if Rand could draw 350 to 'match these women', he claimed that he could shield them, and that requires a lot of power. Nonetheless, it means that Lanfear's angreal could not have given her more than 1050 power, or she would have smothered him. This means that even in a powerful woman's hands that angreal does not exceed 10x, and therefore it's unlikely it could provide Moiraine with a factor of 57.

Even if you ignore everything remember that if Moiraine wanted to get from a strength of 1.5 to even Therava's level (minimum level to be 'stronger than before' 82.5) then her angreal would need to multiply her strength by a factor of 55. With this in mind, remember that Rand said that with Callandor he could hold what ten to one hundred men could hold, so this angreal would be as strong as Callandor, which is not.

From this I think we can deduce two things...

  1. Even though RJ allocated Moiraine a strength of 66, it isn't practical to offer her a strength boost up to a high strength woman with a strong angreal if one takes evidence from the series and previous exposure to angreal. It is much more practical to put Moiraine on a level with Sorilea, and give her a strong angreal that puts her at the level of Elayne.

  2. Rand's angreal was also very strong in the 3-6x region.

Wheel of Time board admin
Fan of Lanfear
Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 2141 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1009 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1133 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 823 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1084 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 945 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1006 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1068 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 931 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 826 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 880 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 969 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 736 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 973 Views
There's not much to go on since all the shields except Berowyn's are the same - 21/01/2016 09:55:14 PM 842 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 985 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 806 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 997 Views
what's dense here is that you keep putting in quotes that don't support your position - 22/01/2016 03:28:16 PM 1117 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1067 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1011 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 986 Views
yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this - 22/01/2016 06:46:23 PM 803 Views
Re: yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this - 23/01/2016 02:35:33 PM 1102 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 445 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1052 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1191 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 951 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1242 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1016 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1160 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 948 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1061 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1220 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 787 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 819 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 857 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 802 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 925 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 711 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 925 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 500 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 479 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 828 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 845 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 921 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 907 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 847 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 995 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 714 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 789 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 683 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 584 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 801 Views

Reply to Message