Active Users:1382 Time:26/09/2026 10:07:25 AM
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 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 1095 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 1313 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 1103 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