Active Users:1138 Time:15/09/2025 09:24:33 PM
I disagree Lord Haart Send a noteboard - 06/01/2010 05:42:44 PM
The bottom line is, I think it is perfectly reasonable of me to think that when Rand balefired Graendals palace, he did this. He used a small amount of what CK could offer to extend the balefire streams width, so that he would take out the entire palace in "one go". But he kept the total strength as low as possible to minimise the damage since he did not want to unmake existence just yet. In doing so he got Graendal (probably) but did not cause immense damage. Some yes, but not anywhere close enough to bring the pattern anywhere near to total destruction which is what Min and Nynaeve seemed to think.


I think there are two factors in Balefire:

1 - Strength (how far back in time the Pattern is burnt out)

2 - Area (how much the balefire affects - this includes the range of the BF)

I see no reason to believe that Rand moderated his use of the CK. After all, he is taking out one of the top Forsaken, and before this, he spreads the knowledge of Balefire to his Asha'man (Narishma), suggesting that while he knows it is dangerous, he doesn't really realise why or how much it is.

Now, Brandon has commented on how far back in time balefire can take things - we know that at most, it couldn't have taken Graendal back more than a week or so (Brandon said a day or two IIRC), but we know that the balefire was strong enough to remove the Compulsion placed on Ramshalan (probably 20-60 minutes earlier). Note that this minimum is roughly equal to or greater than the amount of time that Rand restored in TFoH with Rahvin.

With Rahvin, Rand used at most 1 metre squared of balefire (likely less, but we'll be generous). We also know that Natrin's Barrow is a large estate, so assuming that Rand's target area was 1km squared is not unreasonable.

1km squared = 1 million metres. This strongly suggests that he is definitely drawing deeply on the Choedan Kal.

----

Regarding the destruction of cities in the War of Power, I'd explain it in two parts:

1 - Cities in our world are growing more and more densely populated - AoL cities would have been similar. One square km could hold millions of people in an AoL skyscraper. So there is less area to cover.

2 - We never hear how far back the population was taken. For all we know, the balefire streams were broad but far weaker than Rand's, only taking them back seconds or perhaps even less.
Reply to message
Rand the psycho? - 06/01/2010 02:53:30 AM 1660 Views
I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:07:33 AM 1064 Views
On Balefire - 06/01/2010 04:43:18 AM 1064 Views
Good point - 06/01/2010 05:04:26 AM 1109 Views
On the nature of BaleFire - 06/01/2010 03:32:25 PM 998 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:59:12 AM 894 Views
Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:10:33 AM 1019 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:20:02 AM 926 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:58:00 AM 898 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 11:46:13 AM 848 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 03:55:01 PM 856 Views
I disagree - 06/01/2010 05:42:44 PM 804 Views
Re: I disagree - 06/01/2010 06:41:08 PM 836 Views
Re: I disagree - 07/01/2010 04:42:40 AM 817 Views
I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 07:30:56 AM 971 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 03:32:24 PM 877 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 09:52:47 PM 947 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 11:19:56 PM 855 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:21:50 AM 922 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:56:26 AM 856 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 01:46:16 AM 914 Views
I agree with Templar - 09/01/2010 04:36:20 PM 839 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 07:57:54 AM 957 Views
Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 02:36:42 PM 962 Views
Re: Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 04:16:12 PM 881 Views
But... - 06/01/2010 04:34:02 PM 992 Views
Re: But... - 06/01/2010 06:14:25 PM 802 Views
Doesn't Balefire remove your thread from the Pattern permanently? - 06/01/2010 02:55:38 PM 942 Views
No, RJ stated balefired people can be reborn. *NM* - 06/01/2010 03:26:00 PM 453 Views
But not in this turning of the Wheel. So they'd miss out on MANY lifetimes. - 06/01/2010 05:46:04 PM 872 Views
What? - 06/01/2010 06:20:56 PM 883 Views
Where did you get that? - 06/01/2010 07:09:38 PM 836 Views
No, balefire just kills you backwards in time. It is not super-death. *NM* - 06/01/2010 09:58:18 PM 481 Views
LOL ... super-death! - 06/01/2010 11:59:31 PM 819 Views
Hah! *NM* - 07/01/2010 12:06:07 AM 470 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:20 AM 831 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:33 AM 806 Views
Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 06:51:15 PM 932 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 07:16:14 PM 852 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 08:58:40 PM 894 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 10:47:11 PM 888 Views
let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:26:43 PM 894 Views
Re: let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:40:56 PM 885 Views
actually that quote supports my thoughts - 06/01/2010 11:50:40 PM 910 Views
Re: actually that quote supports my thoughts - 07/01/2010 12:10:07 AM 838 Views
Meh. I just think advocating mass-murder is the opposite direction RJ meant for this to take. - 07/01/2010 12:00:44 AM 935 Views
Sigh. What mass murder? - 07/01/2010 12:15:01 AM 785 Views
you are kidding right? - 07/01/2010 12:19:58 AM 894 Views
In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:14:32 PM 861 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:57:43 PM 869 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:13:21 PM 886 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:52:24 PM 830 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 08:56:43 PM 897 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:26:01 PM 846 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:30:45 PM 783 Views
Personally I'm kind of sick of Rand being the only person killing FS! - 07/01/2010 09:42:57 PM 953 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:56:02 PM 889 Views
OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 07/01/2010 10:30:19 PM 874 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 01:53:25 PM 841 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 02:56:41 PM 877 Views
What might work... - 08/01/2010 12:35:17 PM 782 Views
Re: What might work... - 08/01/2010 11:38:09 PM 808 Views
Yes. Anakin Skywalker all over again - 06/01/2010 11:01:02 PM 967 Views
Meh - 06/01/2010 11:30:24 PM 805 Views
The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:33:32 PM 813 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:50:37 PM 894 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:55:03 PM 854 Views
I do have to guiltily say, though, that if Rand had balefired the Seanchan and THEN became good... - 07/01/2010 12:03:20 AM 861 Views
*laughs behind hand* - 07/01/2010 12:05:54 AM 938 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 07/01/2010 12:23:11 AM 801 Views
I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 12:52:25 AM 812 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 01:24:32 AM 878 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 03:33:52 PM 826 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 04:28:18 PM 965 Views
right cause all Generals are so well versed in medical conditions - 07/01/2010 09:44:09 PM 916 Views
Nice way to avoid the argument. - 07/01/2010 10:00:17 PM 865 Views
I'm just done talking in circles. You seem to think that because people - 07/01/2010 11:53:05 PM 905 Views
I concede - 07/01/2010 01:09:11 AM 804 Views
You weren't wrong overall, but there were some serious flaws in your reasoning. - 07/01/2010 02:43:17 AM 912 Views
Tee hee. - 07/01/2010 05:28:52 AM 875 Views
Morals are subjective anyhow, - 07/01/2010 06:23:09 AM 894 Views
Re: Morals are subjective anyhow, - 07/01/2010 03:23:59 PM 814 Views
I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 12:00:02 AM 894 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 05:56:16 PM 1053 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 18/01/2010 01:00:23 PM 1186 Views
Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 11/01/2010 04:47:10 PM 785 Views
Re: Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 18/01/2010 12:49:26 PM 830 Views

Reply to Message