Active Users:415 Time:01/05/2025 11:01:07 PM
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 1675 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 861 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 919 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 849 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 786 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 821 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 813 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 773 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 802 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 880 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 789 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 959 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 829 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 790 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 930 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 363 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 398 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 869 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 854 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 753 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 732 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 323 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 345 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 769 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 825 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 963 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 764 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1241 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 811 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 354 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 700 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1135 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 739 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 750 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 648 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 756 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 693 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 715 Views

Reply to Message