Active Users:465 Time:18/09/2025 02:54:45 PM
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 1735 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 919 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 980 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 904 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 838 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 881 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 869 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 834 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 861 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 942 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 843 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1014 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 888 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 864 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 981 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 389 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 443 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 928 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 914 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 810 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 788 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 348 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 374 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 825 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 879 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1025 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 817 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1300 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 862 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 381 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 754 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1186 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 793 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 809 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 704 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 816 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 752 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 775 Views

Reply to Message