Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle.
Watcher Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 12:37:46 PM
To be fair to Sanderson I have seen a few transcripts where before giving answeers to fan questions he says that this is his understanding and he is open to correction on the mechanics of the one power, or in order places he says that he needs to check with Maria or team Jordan.
Given the amount of notes that RJ left (which has been said to be more that the number of pages in all the books) I would give him a break when it comes to answeering technical quesions eg. how does such a weave work or how do angreal work.
Again from what I've read when it comes to him putting something in the novel before it goes to publishing it goes to team Jordan who check the notes RJ left.
Given the amount of notes that RJ left (which has been said to be more that the number of pages in all the books) I would give him a break when it comes to answeering technical quesions eg. how does such a weave work or how do angreal work.
Again from what I've read when it comes to him putting something in the novel before it goes to publishing it goes to team Jordan who check the notes RJ left.
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong...
12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM
- 1515 Views
You should include quotes
12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM
- 702 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle.
12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM
- 758 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
- 690 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
- 662 Views
Please elaborate...
12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM
- 669 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group.
12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM
- 621 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once.
12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM
- 643 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle
12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM
- 807 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal?
12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM
- 783 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM*
12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM
- 297 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM*
13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM
- 320 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal...
12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM
- 695 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take
12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM
- 692 Views
Wrong place *ignore*
12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM
- 595 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory?
12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM
- 576 Views
sa'angreal and angreal are only different in terms of the magnitude of their effects *NM*
12/11/2009 06:56:43 PM
- 295 Views
You are missing two important points
12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM
- 781 Views
Response to both points...
12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM
- 683 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
- 583 Views
Re: Look at how similar descriptions of angreal and Sa'angreal affects are in the books.
12/11/2009 07:34:16 PM
- 640 Views
Probably
12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM
- 974 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work...
13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM
- 594 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt
13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM
- 610 Views