Active Users:1550 Time:23/06/2026 06:01:37 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 3395 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1541 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1670 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1398 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1798 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1456 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1529 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1616 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1466 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1388 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1421 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1497 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 1275 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1521 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 1396 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1483 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 1337 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1488 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 1690 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1533 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1512 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1548 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 1327 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 1727 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 781 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1743 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1767 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1518 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1849 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1489 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1803 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1494 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1401 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1743 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1747 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 1327 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 1387 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1391 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 1316 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1470 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 1253 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1516 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 797 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 746 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 1326 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 1389 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1455 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1416 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1395 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1526 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 1247 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 1264 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 1160 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 1180 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 1328 Views

Reply to Message