Active Users:370 Time:01/05/2025 08:14:33 PM
How generous of you. TheCrownless Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM
And how wonderfully vulgar your manner to others is.

I'm not going to go back and look for quotes that we've discussed scores of times over the last 10 years, but I will give you a quick recap on the basics, this once.

Rand himself says in the first few chapters of Book 5, and I quote from memory: "He had thought he was strong before, but Asmodean's teachings were making him stronger."

This is proof that he was not at full strength yet in Book 4.

Secondly, it is stated numerous times in the series that physical exhaustion reduces the amount of Power you can channel. During the confrontation with Asmodean at the end of Book 4, Rand himself states that he hadn't gotten enough sleep in recent days, and that he was exhausted. Even holding on to the Source, was a struggle for him.

Those are two clear pieces of evidence that Rand is significantly below his full potential when he confronts Asmodean in Rhuidean.

Now, regarding the multiplier effect in angreal and sa'angreal:

How does the "additive" effect in sa'angreal explain the minimum strength threshold for their use any better than the multiplier effect does?

Surely, if sa'angreal simply gave you access to a predetermined reservoir of the Power, your unaided strength level would be irrelevant?

I see no problem with the fact that angreal are pure multipliers of One Power strength, as are sa'angreal, with the added requirement that the most powerful sa'angreal can only be accessed by channelers of a certain minimum strength.

The problem with your argument, is that the minimum strength requirement is not in any way a diferentiator between the multiplier and additive models of sa'angreal operation.


How do you know Rand was not talking about his skill? I know using the power does make you reach your potential quicker, but it's hardly like Rand wasn't using it before then.
Sounds to me like Asmodeans teachings are helping with his skill in handling the one power, not dramatically increasing his core power. Strength in the context he was using it could reffer to either his brute strength in the power or his ability with the power, which is a combination of both power and skill.

My "theory" on angreals was that they offered a buffer to use an excess amount of power, this buffer would only be effective to people over a certain strength in the case of a sa'angreal like the CK.
For me the multiplier effect goes against this idea because then you would need a smaller buffer for weaker people, meaning that weaker people could use it instead.

The physical deterioration suffered by Rand through the chase is off-set by the fact he's been a farmer most of his life and extremely fit, while Asmodean was no porker, the initial chase would have taken more out of him than Rand. It's a matter of opinion and a very minor point in the overall debate anyway.
Come to the dark side, We have candy!

I'm Israel, he's Palestine, its more fun when you pick sides.
This message last edited by TheCrownless on 12/11/2009 at 07:54:54 PM
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1675 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 861 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 919 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 848 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 786 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 821 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 813 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 773 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 801 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 879 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 789 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 959 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 829 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 789 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 930 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 363 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 398 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 868 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 854 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 753 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 732 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 323 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 345 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 767 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 824 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 962 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 764 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1241 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 811 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 354 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 700 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1135 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 737 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 749 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 648 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 756 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 693 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 714 Views

Reply to Message