Active Users:828 Time:13/05/2026 04:51:53 PM
Probably Sidious Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM
I nearly made a post about this, but decided not to because Brandon himself said he was unsure how they worked. According to Brandon angreal may be multipliers but sa'angreal provide a fixed amount of the One Power.

I also don't agree with this. The first evidence we have of this is Siuan saying that a strong Aes Sedai could crumple the walls of Tar Valon with Vora's sa'angreal. That means that a weak one would not, and therefore not all channelers gain the same amount of saidar from the sa'angreal, which strongly indicates that Vora's wand is a multiplier.

Secondly, when Elza draws on Callandor through Narishma, it glows like a flame. When Rand uses it, it is so bright that you can't even see that it's a sword. It's another indication that Rand gains more from Callandor.

As for Egwene, it's possible that if the leader of the circle gets hold of a sa'angreal or angreal, the whole circle is augmented. This is further substantiated by the scene where Siuan Heals Mat while using Vora's wand, and in the end every Aes Sedai is tired and sweating - another indication that they all drew on great amounts of saidar for a prolonged time. I'm not sticking up for this theory too much, but I do think it's a possibility.
Wheel of Time board admin
Fan of Lanfear
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 964 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 1071 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 951 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1477 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 1003 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 888 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 876 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 899 Views

Reply to Message