It stands to reason that this would reduce how far back the balefire reaches
Based on the evidence we have thus far, the power of the balefire is directly proportional to the amount of time erased from the Pattern. And the Power of the balefire, in turn, appears to be directly proportional to the thickness of the bar of balefire used.
Moiraine killed Be'lal with a bolt of balefire as thick as her little finger. It took out a couple of seconds of the Pattern.
Rand killed Ra'vin with a bolt of balefire as thick as a man's body. According to Sanderson, it burned between 15 minutes and half an hour backwards through the Pattern.
To take out an entire Castle, it stands to reason that the balefire probably had to be hundreds of metres in diameter.
That's exponentially greater than what was done to Rahvin.
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong...
12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM
- 1509 Views
You should include quotes
12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM
- 698 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle.
12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM
- 752 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
- 685 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
- 657 Views
Please elaborate...
12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM
- 665 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group.
12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM
- 616 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once.
12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM
- 639 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle
12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM
- 803 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion...
12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM
- 673 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal?
12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM
- 779 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM*
12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM
- 294 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM*
13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM
- 318 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal...
12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM
- 691 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take
12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM
- 687 Views
Wrong place *ignore*
12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM
- 591 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory?
12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM
- 572 Views
sa'angreal and angreal are only different in terms of the magnitude of their effects *NM*
12/11/2009 06:56:43 PM
- 294 Views
You are missing two important points
12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM
- 777 Views
Response to both points...
12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM
- 678 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
- 579 Views
Re: Look at how similar descriptions of angreal and Sa'angreal affects are in the books.
12/11/2009 07:34:16 PM
- 636 Views
Probably
12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM
- 968 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work...
13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM
- 591 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt
13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM
- 605 Views