Active Users:648 Time:04/08/2025 06:27:55 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 1708 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 893 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 954 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 881 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 818 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 856 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 843 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 808 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 838 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 914 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 817 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 994 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 865 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 822 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 960 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 377 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 432 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 900 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 888 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 787 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 765 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 337 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 359 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 809 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 860 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1007 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 796 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1275 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 840 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 368 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 734 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1164 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 773 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 782 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 685 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 794 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 723 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 752 Views

Reply to Message