Active Users:1345 Time:26/09/2026 10:05:01 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Please elaborate... Shannow Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM
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?
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... Shannow - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1950 Views
You should include quotes TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 1140 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 1205 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 1087 Views
Sure, I agree... Shannow - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 1064 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 1081 Views
Please elaborate... Shannow - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 1087 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 1064 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. Shannow - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 1094 Views
How generous of you. TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1165 Views
Scrap that TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 1045 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle Insomdeon - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1232 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... Shannow - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 1099 Views
I could have sprayed TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 1058 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? fionwe1987 - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1219 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 503 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* Blaine - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 541 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 1179 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take fionwe1987 - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1156 Views
Wrong place *ignore* Sidious - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 1067 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 1003 Views
I do *NM* Sidious - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 452 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 467 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* taura-tierno - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 1052 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 486 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? TheUltimateReality - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 1094 Views
You are missing two important points PatAtt - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1312 Views
Response to both points... Shannow - 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM 1139 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 1010 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 1100 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow Marshall - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 1042 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" Corwin - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1580 Views
Oh, also Corwin - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 1102 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* Marshall - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 489 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory Jim - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 977 Views
Probably Sidious - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1448 Views
Agreed, with one point Marshall - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 997 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... fionwe1987 - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 1061 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt Ryan - 13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM 1055 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... Tedtheman - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 969 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... Tedtheman - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 1050 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books BlackAdder - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 983 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books taura-tierno - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 1000 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes