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.
You sure on that? Like I said, I haven't done a re-read in a while but if you could provide quotes from the books/RJ I'd be willing to accept it.
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.
Rand was still stronger than Asmodean at that point, they were both in bad physical condition after the chase, so I dont think that argument holds much water.
For me angreals only make sense if a major part of it's calculation is channelers power + "X", wether there is another part of the equation (eg. channelers power x 5 + "X"
or not is up for debate, but a straight out multiplier wouldn't work. On what basis do you say that Rand was DEFINITELY stronger than Asmodean at that point?
And on what basis do you say that a straight magnifier doesn't work for angreal?
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong...
- 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM
1794 Views
You should include quotes
- 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM
963 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle.
- 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM
1028 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
942 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
927 Views
Please elaborate...
- 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM
913 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group.
- 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM
891 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once.
- 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM
917 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle
- 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM
1067 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal?
- 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM
1051 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM*
- 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM
414 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM*
- 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM
468 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal...
- 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM
1004 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take
- 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM
990 Views
Wrong place *ignore*
- 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM
877 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory?
- 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM
836 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
411 Views
You are missing two important points
- 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM
1108 Views
Response to both points...
- 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM
972 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
841 Views
Re: Look at how similar descriptions of angreal and Sa'angreal affects are in the books.
- 12/11/2009 07:34:16 PM
917 Views
Probably
- 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM
1260 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work...
- 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM
877 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt
- 13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM
890 Views