Active Users:1817 Time:23/09/2026 09:59:13 AM
It eliminates for the following Logain Send a noteboard - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM
The answer states that it wouldn't matter if Rand balefired Graendal, because Asmodean died too long ago.

Basically, your claim is still unsupported by Brandon Sanderson's answers, and at most, these answers still revolve around calculating the effects of balefire on the Pattern rather than saying who is or who isn't Asmodean's killer.


According to Brandon, at the most, Rand could burn somebody out of the pattern a full week back. That's using the Choedan Kal, etc. Because Asmodean died more than a week ago (it was something like 6 months ago in Randland time) then Graendal could not have been Asmo's killer.

If it is true that Graendal died by balefire, then she did not kill Asmodean, end of story.
Reply to message
Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 05:18:48 PM 2085 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 1020 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 1069 Views
Yes, Brandon did. I edited my original message to add in another quote from Brandon...see above *NM* - 11/11/2009 05:33:27 PM 539 Views
That still doesn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:39:12 PM 1069 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 1063 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 1111 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 1090 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 1029 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 936 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 901 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 963 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 942 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 948 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 903 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 979 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 930 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 978 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 948 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 922 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 967 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 970 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 984 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 1069 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 1044 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 972 Views
Agree - 18/11/2009 11:22:09 PM 928 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 974 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 1016 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 882 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 855 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 911 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 967 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 483 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 1007 Views
this is what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post *NM* - 11/11/2009 09:28:01 PM 475 Views
What? Did you double post? - 11/11/2009 09:49:15 PM 884 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 934 Views
Why is it impossible? You can't have parallel timelines? *NM* - 12/11/2009 11:29:45 AM 474 Views
I don't say it's impossible... - 12/11/2009 03:11:17 PM 968 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 888 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 941 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 917 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 937 Views
that proved nothing. *NM* - 11/11/2009 10:46:15 PM 454 Views
Rather pointless, really. *NM* - 12/11/2009 01:08:14 AM 406 Views
Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:13:45 AM 940 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 924 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 866 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 914 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 473 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 895 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 443 Views

Reply to Message