Both sides have some quotes against them, but neither says an angreal multiplies or adds more for a stronger channeler. That has absolutely no evidence for it.
View original post
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.
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.
I agree. I also don't think a multiplier would work the way Rand's angreal did when he used it with the Choedan Kal against Asmodean. Asmodean and Rand both got exactly half of the CK, which doesn't make sense if it multiplied their strength. And then Rand was able to use his angreal at the same time, and it only added a small trickle. It didn't multiply the amount he was drawing through the CK. Unless angreal have some way of knowing your potential, rather than the amount of the OP you're drawing, I don't see how Rand only got a trickle more when also using the CK.
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.
I think the simplest explanation was that Elayne was wrong. Or, most angreal are "weak", and stronger ones are incredibly rare.
Perhaps there are both multipliers and additive angreal.
Seems to complicated to me to be the true answer here.
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66
- 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM
2147 Views
Uhhh...
- 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM
1135 Views
Yet there are problems with either
- 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM
826 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either
- 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM
1090 Views
random thought on Shielding
- 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM
1007 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though.
- 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM
1071 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this
- 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM
934 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness
- 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM
829 Views
it's a visualization thing really
- 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM
885 Views
Not the crux of the debate...
- 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM
970 Views
Not really though
- 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM
739 Views
I always explained it as
- 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM
977 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
846 Views
That's precisely my point
- 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM
988 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence
- 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM
810 Views
There's actual evidence:
- 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM
1000 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
1121 Views
Whoa..
- 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM
1069 Views
Not at all
- 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM
1014 Views
Wonderful
- 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM
989 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
807 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
1108 Views
Hmmm....
- 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM
1056 Views
Let me clear this up
- 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM
1193 Views
Some more quotes
- 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM
958 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise
- 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM
1248 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise
- 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM
1017 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise
- 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM
1164 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise
- 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM
956 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing
- 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM
858 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing...
- 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM
790 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw
- 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM
823 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other?
- 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM
860 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me
- 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM
806 Views
Simple
- 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM
927 Views
Not at all
- 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM
715 Views
Huh?
- 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM
927 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way 
*NM*
- 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM
501 Views
*NM*
- 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM
501 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM*
- 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM
482 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position.
- 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM
831 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position.
- 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM
849 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true
- 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM
924 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this
- 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM
908 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this
- 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM
848 Views
Uhhh...
- 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM
996 Views
Funny, I just saw this post
- 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM
717 Views