Active Users:580 Time:02/05/2026 06:21:45 PM
Yet there are problems with either darius_sedai Send a noteboard - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM

View original post
I'm having trouble understanding your interpretation of the "Nynaeve would do better still" argument.

We have two options:

1)Angreal are multipliers: So Elayne's strength gets multiplied by X, and this happens to be twice Nynaeve's strength. For Nynaeve herself, of course, multiplying her strength by X would mean access to even more of the OP.

2) Angreal are additive: there's a lot going for this, especially based on what we know about Seeds now. If so, Elayne's level+X is twice Nynaeve's strength. Obviously, Nynaeve herself would do better if X were added to her greater strength.

In neither scenario do we have to assume that angreal somehow work differently based on your strength. They either add or multiply, and they do so evenly for all channelers.


Multiplier model makes the bracelet vastly too powerful for Rand to have had any chance on the docks. For it to have made Moiraine stronger than her previous level it would have needed to multiplied her new strength by at least 6x (possibly more), but that would have made Lanfear like 5x Rands strength on the docks which seems like a lot even with the fat man angreal. Especially since she had the bracelet before he drew through his angreal.

Additive model has flaws as well,as I mentioned in my earlier post that it doesn't fully explain how the Turtle could make Elayne 2x Nynaeve and still be a "weak" angreal, in fact it would likely be stronger than the bracelet given what we know it will make Moiraine stronger than level 13 but seems unlikely that she would be much beyond that from the way it's phrased.

Perhaps there are both multipliers and additive angreal.

Domani Drag Queen in the White Tower ... Aran'gar watch out!
Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 3330 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1519 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1641 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1372 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1764 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1436 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1496 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1588 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1433 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1366 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1393 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1473 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 1241 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1494 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 1362 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1457 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 1309 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1458 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 1659 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1511 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1485 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1515 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 1299 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 1706 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 763 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1719 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1745 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1495 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1832 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1466 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1778 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1464 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1372 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1713 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1725 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 1303 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 1361 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1365 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 1288 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1420 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 1219 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1487 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 782 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 733 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 1300 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 1357 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1424 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1383 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1365 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1487 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 1220 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 1238 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 1138 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 1154 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 1297 Views

Reply to Message