Active Users:1401 Time:26/09/2026 10:08:09 AM
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 1950 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 1142 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1207 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 1087 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 1065 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 1083 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 1088 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 1064 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 1096 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1166 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 1047 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1233 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 1101 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 1058 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1220 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 503 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 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... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1181 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1158 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 1068 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 1005 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 452 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 467 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 1052 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 1096 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1314 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 1044 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1580 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 1104 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 489 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 979 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1450 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 998 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 1061 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 971 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 1052 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 984 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 1000 Views

Reply to Message