Active Users:810 Time:13/10/2025 08:33:47 PM
Funny, I just saw this post darius_sedai Send a noteboard - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM

Okay one last attempt here.

Channeler has strength 75, but we know a person can draw an amount beyond their maximum up to the point where they burnout and die. For the sake of argument let's assume that number is 80. If someone can draw more than this much above their maximum it would seem odd given how many times we've heard about the dangers of overdrawing.

If an angreal is additive it gives an additional strength of 100 (for simplicity sake) meaning the channeler in question can draw 175 very safely. But the angreal prevents the channeler from drawing beyond this, in other words it has a buffer. If the angreal has no buffer our channeler can pull in more power up to 180 before they burnout and die. The angreal can't offer more than 100 but the channeler still can't draw in beyond their physical limitations.

However, if an angreal is a magnifier of 2x magnitude it's somewhat different in terms of how a non-buffer would end up working. With a buffer our channeler can use 150 with no issues, but without the buffer the number jumps to 160 before they die because they've drawn in 80 on their own and the angreal is doubling that ... Meaning they have pulled in 2x beyond the normal burnout and die increase (10 more instead of 5 more). This clearly increases with the intensity of the angreal so with a 10x magnifier our channeler would be drawing in 800 before death rather than the "safe" 750. Alternatively a lack of a buffer could mean that a multiplier angreal can actually increase from being 10x to say 15x but no longer protects the channeler from the additional influx of power, thus our channeler can draw up to 1,125 or potentially up to 1,200 before death.

Why I see this as important is because an angreal that offers a fixed amount of OP doesn't increase the amount of OP that causes burnout and death so there are still relatively small limits to overdrawing, something like 5-10 v. Potentially massive limits of 50-100. And the fact that they are no longer drawing through the angreal in an additive model, they are only able to draw a fixed amount with an additive angreal whereas a multiplier fits the narrative of "drawing even deeper through the angreal" that we've heard over and over.

Domani Drag Queen in the White Tower ... Aran'gar watch out!
This message last edited by darius_sedai on 18/09/2016 at 08:39:23 PM
Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 2927 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1345 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1479 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1193 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1589 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1294 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1339 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1422 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1291 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1206 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1232 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1319 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 1075 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1337 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 1214 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1297 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 1145 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1318 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 1491 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1395 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1350 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1332 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 1145 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 1561 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 708 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1539 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1575 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1332 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1672 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1331 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1638 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1313 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1216 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1526 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1563 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 1137 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 1190 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1197 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 1133 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1259 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 1063 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1320 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 692 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 657 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 1158 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 1218 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1268 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1234 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1204 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1332 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 1080 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 1105 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 1007 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 994 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 1159 Views

Reply to Message