Active Users:1078 Time:13/11/2026 12:08:16 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 1991 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 1171 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1245 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 1108 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 1097 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 1117 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 1122 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 1100 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 1137 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1198 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 1073 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1267 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 1137 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 1091 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1255 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 518 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 560 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1213 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1203 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 1106 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 1031 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 469 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 482 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 1100 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 1126 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1351 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 1077 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1634 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 1146 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 508 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 1017 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1497 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 1026 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 1089 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 1003 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 1089 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 1023 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 1050 Views

Reply to Message