Active Users:825 Time:13/05/2026 04:52:32 PM
Oh, also Corwin Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM

This theory can help to explain the whole Rand/Asmodean confrontation in Rhuidean, when both were tapping into the Choedan Kal. The results of Sidious' formula for determining strength in the Power with the Choedan Kal show that Rand and Verin, despite their vast difference in unaided potential in the Power, come very close to being able to channel an equivalent amount. Asmodean is much closer to Rand than Verin is, so even if Rand and Asmodean were not exactly equivalent in strength at this point, they would be close enough that it really wouldn't matter who was marginally stronger. This incident does not necessarily support the idea that sa'angreal provide a reservoir of Power, instead of an exponential increase.
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1870 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 1046 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1120 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 1018 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 980 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 1007 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 985 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 975 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 1001 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1077 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 965 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1145 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 1022 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 983 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1136 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 457 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 502 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1092 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1072 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 969 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 919 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 413 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 426 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 959 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 1010 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1207 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 952 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1477 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 1004 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 444 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 889 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1334 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 916 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 965 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 876 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 960 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 877 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 899 Views

Reply to Message