Active Users:1078 Time:13/11/2026 12:08:16 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
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).


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.



Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... Shannow - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1991 Views
You should include quotes TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 1171 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. Shannow - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1245 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. Watcher - 12/11/2009 12:37:46 PM 1108 Views
Sure, I agree... Shannow - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 1097 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 02:27:41 PM 1117 Views
Please elaborate... Shannow - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 1122 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 1100 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. Shannow - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 1137 Views
How generous of you. TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1197 Views
Scrap that TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 1073 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle Insomdeon - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1267 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... Shannow - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 1137 Views
I could have sprayed TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 1091 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? fionwe1987 - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1255 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 518 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* Blaine - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 560 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... Shannow - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1212 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take fionwe1987 - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1203 Views
Wrong place *ignore* Sidious - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 1106 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 1031 Views
I do *NM* Sidious - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 469 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 482 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* taura-tierno - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 1100 Views
sa'angreal and angreal are only different in terms of the magnitude of their effects *NM* Marshall - 12/11/2009 06:56:43 PM 505 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? TheUltimateReality - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 1126 Views
You are missing two important points PatAtt - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1351 Views
Response to both points... Shannow - 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM 1173 Views
In fact, I've just read the actual report, and Sanderson didn't say anything near what you quoted. Shannow - 12/11/2009 06:06:39 PM 1055 Views
Re: Look at how similar descriptions of angreal and Sa'angreal affects are in the books. Tedtheman - 12/11/2009 07:34:16 PM 1143 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow Marshall - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 1077 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" Corwin - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1634 Views
Oh, also Corwin - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 1145 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* Marshall - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 508 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory Jim - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 1017 Views
Probably Sidious - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1497 Views
Agreed, with one point Marshall - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 1026 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... fionwe1987 - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 1089 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt Ryan - 13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM 1092 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... Tedtheman - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 1003 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... Tedtheman - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 1089 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books BlackAdder - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 1023 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books taura-tierno - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 1050 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes