The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle.
Shannow Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM
Of things RJ said on angreals.
Since most people will be unsure of if you are right or not.
I always thought that an angreal allowed you to channel "x" ammount more, which is why when Asmo and Rand used the CK they were both about equal despite Rand being stronger in the power.
As for the Egwene thing, she was in a circle, it wouldn't matter, she had the power of loads of novices behind her.
Thats why I think you might be wrong about the multiplying effect, can you imagine how powerful the CK would be in a circle of 64 if that were the case?
It makes sense that it allowes "x" ammount extra and doesn't scale (which is why weaker channelers couldn't use the CK).
Since most people will be unsure of if you are right or not.
I always thought that an angreal allowed you to channel "x" ammount more, which is why when Asmo and Rand used the CK they were both about equal despite Rand being stronger in the power.
As for the Egwene thing, she was in a circle, it wouldn't matter, she had the power of loads of novices behind her.
Thats why I think you might be wrong about the multiplying effect, can you imagine how powerful the CK would be in a circle of 64 if that were the case?
It makes sense that it allowes "x" ammount extra and doesn't scale (which is why weaker channelers couldn't use the CK).
An angreal magnifies the Power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. If that individual is part of a circle, he/she will merely add a greater amount of Power to the circle, thanks to the angreal.
Also, in the Asmodean/Rand case, they were equally balanced because at the time, they were equal in strength. Rand was not yet at his full power, and he was not in good physical shape. The net result was that he and Asmodean were perfectly matched when they shared access to the Choedan Kal.
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong...
- 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM
1870 Views
You should include quotes
- 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM
1046 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle.
- 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM
1120 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle.
- 12/11/2009 12:37:46 PM
1018 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle.
- 12/11/2009 02:27:41 PM
1007 Views
Please elaborate...
- 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM
985 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group.
- 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM
975 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once.
- 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM
1001 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle
- 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM
1145 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal?
- 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM
1136 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM*
- 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM
456 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM*
- 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM
502 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal...
- 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM
1092 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take
- 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM
1071 Views
Wrong place *ignore*
- 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM
968 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory?
- 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM
919 Views
*NM*
sa'angreal and angreal are only different in terms of the magnitude of their effects *NM*
- 12/11/2009 06:56:43 PM
446 Views
You are missing two important points
- 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM
1207 Views
Response to both points...
- 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM
1050 Views
In fact, I've just read the actual report, and Sanderson didn't say anything near what you quoted.
- 12/11/2009 06:06:39 PM
917 Views
Re: Look at how similar descriptions of angreal and Sa'angreal affects are in the books.
- 12/11/2009 07:34:16 PM
1012 Views
Probably
- 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM
1333 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work...
- 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM
965 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt
- 13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM
967 Views