Active Users:1208 Time:16/09/2025 06:09:55 AM
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. Datakim Send a noteboard - 06/01/2010 11:19:56 PM

I see it as a single offensive, or single battle. The idea that it was done in a single weave seems inconsistent from what we've read so far - we've seen Rand, the most powerful channeler in the world, use balefire in battle against Rahvin and Sammael, and it never came close to what was necessary to wipe out a city. Moiraine, one of the strongest Aes Sedai in centuries, wove balefire weak enough that there was some question that Be'lal might be reincarnated despite it. As this is pre-Choedan Kal, I cannot see how it is possible to imagine a weave of balefire capable of eradicating an entire city.


So why is it then, that RJ did not say that. He did not say that a hundred thousand people were killed in a single battle. Or a single offensive. Or during a single day. Those are NOT the words he used. What he said, is "one go", which to me suggests a momentary instant.

And yes, it does seem inconsistent to what we have seen so far, UNLESS there is a way to control balefires width so that you can make it wider than what we have seen, without using insane amounts of strength. Essentially making a wide beam large enough for even a city, that is still weak enough not to burn people back months and instantly destroy the pattern. Which is what I am arguing happened at Graendals palace, minimizing the damage since Rand did not yet want to destroy the pattern.

Moiraine and Rand might not have had the knowledge or the need to do this before. But Rand/LTT at Graendals palace did, so thats what he did.


Also, if you read RJ's quote, you realise that this happened more than once. If in a single weave, how? The quote suggests that the cities were wiped out during conflict between the two sides, that both attackers and defenders were using balefire.


How does the quote suggest that both sides were using balefire? All it says that several cities were balefired. Unless you have a different quote than the one I used?

I figure it was indeed used to wipe a single city in an instant, maybe the other side then retaliated on a different city using the same technique, at which point the pattern started groaning and people realised that maybe this is not such a good idea.


You consider 'a matter of minutes' to be a long period when dealing with eradication of cities? And no, I did mean in one go. I simply interpret that 'go' to be a battle, rather than a weave.


Minutes you say? How will you wipe out a hundred thousand people in minutes in a large city with people going everywhere and hiding and so on and so on. With the defenders fighting back, forcing you to proceed slowly, etc. I think it makes far more sense if the entire city was taken out in one go, with a big blast.

Lets use Rand as an example, his balefire stream was the thickness of a man it is said. Lets say 1 meter thick then.

Lets say you have, oh, 5000 channelers.

Now imagine those channelers in the city, going from house to house, room to room and balefiring people with balefire streams only 1 meter thick. And killing 100K people.

This is something that would not take minutes, it would take days. You don't sack and destroy an entire city in minutes without weapons of mass destruction.

And tell me this, even if it were possible, WHY would they have done this? If they wanted to destroy a city, why would they send in a large group of channelers to wave around their bars of balefire, killing people one by one, rather than just blowing the entire city up in a traditional way. Or even using nuclear weapons or the like.

Why use an inferor weapon like balefire, if you could just use a circle of 72 to annihilate the entire city in a fireball.

No, the only reason to use balefire is if it was even better than that. And having huge groups of channelers roaming the city would not be. The only logical explanation is that the AoLers could indeed use balefire to wipe out an entire city in an instant. That is why it was so feared.


Could you present that evidence to me?


I already have and you know it. RJ said so. You can disagree what he meant, in which case there is nothing to do but either agree to disagree, or try to ask BS if there is anything in the notes saying if the balefired cities were wiped out in an instant or if it took days.

My view is to believe that RJ was literal and his "one go" does mean exactly that. One go. One blast. 100K balefired in an instant. And that requires a balefire blast that is very wide. Suggesting that width can be controlled. Which is my argument.
Reply to message
Rand the psycho? - 06/01/2010 02:53:30 AM 1663 Views
I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:07:33 AM 1067 Views
On Balefire - 06/01/2010 04:43:18 AM 1068 Views
Good point - 06/01/2010 05:04:26 AM 1111 Views
On the nature of BaleFire - 06/01/2010 03:32:25 PM 1001 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:59:12 AM 898 Views
Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:10:33 AM 1022 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:20:02 AM 929 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:58:00 AM 899 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 11:46:13 AM 850 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 03:55:01 PM 858 Views
I disagree - 06/01/2010 05:42:44 PM 806 Views
Re: I disagree - 06/01/2010 06:41:08 PM 839 Views
Re: I disagree - 07/01/2010 04:42:40 AM 819 Views
I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 07:30:56 AM 974 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 03:32:24 PM 880 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 09:52:47 PM 951 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 11:19:56 PM 858 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:21:50 AM 925 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:56:26 AM 859 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 01:46:16 AM 917 Views
I agree with Templar - 09/01/2010 04:36:20 PM 841 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 07:57:54 AM 960 Views
Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 02:36:42 PM 964 Views
Re: Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 04:16:12 PM 883 Views
But... - 06/01/2010 04:34:02 PM 994 Views
Re: But... - 06/01/2010 06:14:25 PM 805 Views
Doesn't Balefire remove your thread from the Pattern permanently? - 06/01/2010 02:55:38 PM 944 Views
No, RJ stated balefired people can be reborn. *NM* - 06/01/2010 03:26:00 PM 454 Views
But not in this turning of the Wheel. So they'd miss out on MANY lifetimes. - 06/01/2010 05:46:04 PM 874 Views
What? - 06/01/2010 06:20:56 PM 886 Views
Where did you get that? - 06/01/2010 07:09:38 PM 838 Views
No, balefire just kills you backwards in time. It is not super-death. *NM* - 06/01/2010 09:58:18 PM 482 Views
LOL ... super-death! - 06/01/2010 11:59:31 PM 822 Views
Hah! *NM* - 07/01/2010 12:06:07 AM 471 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:20 AM 834 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:33 AM 808 Views
Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 06:51:15 PM 934 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 07:16:14 PM 854 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 08:58:40 PM 897 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 10:47:11 PM 891 Views
let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:26:43 PM 896 Views
Re: let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:40:56 PM 888 Views
actually that quote supports my thoughts - 06/01/2010 11:50:40 PM 912 Views
Re: actually that quote supports my thoughts - 07/01/2010 12:10:07 AM 841 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 938 Views
Sigh. What mass murder? - 07/01/2010 12:15:01 AM 788 Views
you are kidding right? - 07/01/2010 12:19:58 AM 897 Views
In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:14:32 PM 863 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:57:43 PM 872 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:13:21 PM 887 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:52:24 PM 832 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 08:56:43 PM 899 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:26:01 PM 849 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:30:45 PM 784 Views
Personally I'm kind of sick of Rand being the only person killing FS! - 07/01/2010 09:42:57 PM 957 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:56:02 PM 891 Views
OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 07/01/2010 10:30:19 PM 877 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 01:53:25 PM 845 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 02:56:41 PM 879 Views
What might work... - 08/01/2010 12:35:17 PM 785 Views
Re: What might work... - 08/01/2010 11:38:09 PM 811 Views
Yes. Anakin Skywalker all over again - 06/01/2010 11:01:02 PM 971 Views
Meh - 06/01/2010 11:30:24 PM 808 Views
The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:33:32 PM 816 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:50:37 PM 897 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:55:03 PM 858 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 864 Views
*laughs behind hand* - 07/01/2010 12:05:54 AM 941 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 07/01/2010 12:23:11 AM 804 Views
I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 12:52:25 AM 814 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 01:24:32 AM 880 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 03:33:52 PM 829 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 04:28:18 PM 968 Views
right cause all Generals are so well versed in medical conditions - 07/01/2010 09:44:09 PM 919 Views
Nice way to avoid the argument. - 07/01/2010 10:00:17 PM 867 Views
I'm just done talking in circles. You seem to think that because people - 07/01/2010 11:53:05 PM 908 Views
I concede - 07/01/2010 01:09:11 AM 807 Views
You weren't wrong overall, but there were some serious flaws in your reasoning. - 07/01/2010 02:43:17 AM 914 Views
Tee hee. - 07/01/2010 05:28:52 AM 878 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 818 Views
I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 12:00:02 AM 897 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 05:56:16 PM 1055 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 18/01/2010 01:00:23 PM 1189 Views
Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 11/01/2010 04:47:10 PM 787 Views
Re: Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 18/01/2010 12:49:26 PM 832 Views

Reply to Message