Active Users:372 Time:01/05/2025 02:27:38 AM
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 2480 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1163 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1311 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1016 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1270 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1118 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1150 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1244 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1095 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1011 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1057 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1112 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 917 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1141 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 1031 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1120 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 961 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1130 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 1294 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1212 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1177 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1162 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 977 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 1257 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 547 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1219 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1359 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1139 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1419 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1155 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1334 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1125 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1036 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1212 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1402 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 961 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 985 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1029 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 983 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1100 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 867 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1106 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 581 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 541 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 988 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 1000 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1100 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1058 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1009 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1151 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 897 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 927 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 845 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 790 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 990 Views

Reply to Message