Active Users:586 Time:06/11/2025 09:02:48 AM
I completely agree with you Shannow Marshall Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM
I even think that, for the sake of the next two books, we should compile a list of quotes throughout the book mentioning the effects of angreal and sa'angreal, as well as instances of people using them and the relative amounts of power used.

I believe, although I'm not positive, that a full circle cannot utilize an angreal or sa'angreal--it will only magnify the holder's strength. And by strength, in this case, I mean the amount of power that channer X is capable of wielding at that particular moment. A sa'angreal, while it would change Egwene's trickle into something much marger, may not have been enough to account for the amount of power she wielded. And it certainly should not have multiplied the strength of the entire Link.
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1770 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 934 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1004 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 922 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 866 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 904 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 888 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 866 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 891 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 977 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 862 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1037 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 913 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 882 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1017 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 403 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 457 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 972 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 960 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 852 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 817 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 363 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 386 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 858 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 898 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1064 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 842 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1340 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 889 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 396 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 780 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1225 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 811 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 846 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 750 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 855 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 771 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 796 Views

Reply to Message