Active Users:1417 Time:26/09/2026 09:23:33 AM
Agreed, with one point Marshall Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM
I don't believe that your level of exhaustion has to do with the actual amount of power you draw. If Rand, without an angreal, channeled at his max for 4 hours straight, he'd be pretty exhausted afterwards. If he used an angreal that doubled his strength, do you think he'd be twice as tired? Doubtful, considering he wasn't dead after using the CK.
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 1139 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1204 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 1085 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 1062 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 1080 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 1085 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 1062 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 1093 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1164 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 1044 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1230 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 1098 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 1056 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1217 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 502 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 1178 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1155 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 1066 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 1002 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 451 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 466 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 1050 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 1093 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1311 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 1041 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1579 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 1101 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 488 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 976 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1447 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 996 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 968 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 1049 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 981 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 998 Views

Reply to Message