Active Users:850 Time:16/09/2025 01:45:30 AM
Re: I disagree Lord Haart Send a noteboard - 07/01/2010 04:42:40 AM
Given that, and given that he knows that the timespan he burned Rahvin back was sufficient since Moridin told him that Rahvin was gone. And given that he has not had his breakdown yet and does not want to destroy the pattern, why would he burn Graendal back any more than he did Rahvin? I see no reason why he would.

I think what we saw was a wide balefire stream that had been attuned so that while it touched everyone, those that it touched were not burned back all that long. No more than Rahvin and probably less. He might even have used as little as what Moiraine used when he took out Bel'al.


Actually, we DO know that Graendal was burned back at LEAST 15 minutes or so. There had to be enough time for Ramshalan to get Compulsed, return to Rand, be delved for Compulsion, and then for Rand to act. Given that they were a fair way from Natrin's Barrow, and that Ramshalan would take time to find his way out, I'd say an estimate of 30 minutes is reasonable. And this is the MINIMUM balefire strength - Rand could have used more for all we know, but any less and the Compulsion would not have been removed.

Based on this, we know the strength of the balefire was similar to that used on Rahvin (ie, Rand's total strength). Couple that with the area affected:

1km squared = 1 million metres squared.


and we see that

This strongly suggests that he is definitely drawing deeply on the Choedan Kal.


Because we have to assume that the Balefire was equally strong at all points (Rand didn't know where in Natrin's Barrow Graendal was, and he had to hit her hard enough that he would get the confirmation of her death from the removal of Ramshalan's Compulsion).

1 million times Rand's own strength is certainly a massive boost, no matter how you look at it. Even if we assume that Natrin's Barrow is only 250m squared, that's still 62,500 times Rand's unaided strength.

So in answer to your argument, we do definitively know that the balefire was of substantial strength, and therefore covering a large area of it was a dangerous act.
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 1066 Views
Good point - 06/01/2010 05:04:26 AM 1111 Views
On the nature of BaleFire - 06/01/2010 03:32:25 PM 999 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 857 Views
I disagree - 06/01/2010 05:42:44 PM 805 Views
Re: I disagree - 06/01/2010 06:41:08 PM 838 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 879 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 09:52:47 PM 950 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 11:19:56 PM 857 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 858 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 01:46:16 AM 916 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 959 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 992 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 885 Views
Where did you get that? - 06/01/2010 07:09:38 PM 837 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 937 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 896 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 848 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 955 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 844 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 02:56:41 PM 878 Views
What might work... - 08/01/2010 12:35:17 PM 785 Views
Re: What might work... - 08/01/2010 11:38:09 PM 810 Views
Yes. Anakin Skywalker all over again - 06/01/2010 11:01:02 PM 970 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 815 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 857 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 940 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 07/01/2010 12:23:11 AM 803 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 828 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 918 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 907 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 896 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 1188 Views
Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 11/01/2010 04:47:10 PM 786 Views
Re: Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 18/01/2010 12:49:26 PM 832 Views

Reply to Message