Active Users:381 Time:10/05/2025 02:59:42 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 1596 Views
I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:07:33 AM 994 Views
On Balefire - 06/01/2010 04:43:18 AM 994 Views
Good point - 06/01/2010 05:04:26 AM 1019 Views
On the nature of BaleFire - 06/01/2010 03:32:25 PM 923 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:59:12 AM 831 Views
Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:10:33 AM 952 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:20:02 AM 865 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:58:00 AM 834 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 11:46:13 AM 787 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 03:55:01 PM 786 Views
I disagree - 06/01/2010 05:42:44 PM 745 Views
Re: I disagree - 06/01/2010 06:41:08 PM 770 Views
Re: I disagree - 07/01/2010 04:42:40 AM 752 Views
I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 07:30:56 AM 909 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 03:32:24 PM 816 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 09:52:47 PM 879 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 11:19:56 PM 759 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:21:50 AM 854 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:56:26 AM 792 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 01:46:16 AM 806 Views
I agree with Templar - 09/01/2010 04:36:20 PM 776 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 07:57:54 AM 890 Views
Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 02:36:42 PM 901 Views
Re: Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 04:16:12 PM 814 Views
But... - 06/01/2010 04:34:02 PM 928 Views
Re: But... - 06/01/2010 06:14:25 PM 740 Views
Doesn't Balefire remove your thread from the Pattern permanently? - 06/01/2010 02:55:38 PM 800 Views
No, RJ stated balefired people can be reborn. *NM* - 06/01/2010 03:26:00 PM 412 Views
But not in this turning of the Wheel. So they'd miss out on MANY lifetimes. - 06/01/2010 05:46:04 PM 807 Views
What? - 06/01/2010 06:20:56 PM 811 Views
Where did you get that? - 06/01/2010 07:09:38 PM 774 Views
No, balefire just kills you backwards in time. It is not super-death. *NM* - 06/01/2010 09:58:18 PM 449 Views
LOL ... super-death! - 06/01/2010 11:59:31 PM 755 Views
Hah! *NM* - 07/01/2010 12:06:07 AM 395 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:20 AM 764 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:33 AM 737 Views
Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 06:51:15 PM 870 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 07:16:14 PM 793 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 08:58:40 PM 830 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 10:47:11 PM 822 Views
let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:26:43 PM 809 Views
Re: let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:40:56 PM 809 Views
actually that quote supports my thoughts - 06/01/2010 11:50:40 PM 828 Views
Re: actually that quote supports my thoughts - 07/01/2010 12:10:07 AM 783 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 838 Views
Sigh. What mass murder? - 07/01/2010 12:15:01 AM 725 Views
you are kidding right? - 07/01/2010 12:19:58 AM 816 Views
In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:14:32 PM 798 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:57:43 PM 807 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:13:21 PM 819 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:52:24 PM 762 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 08:56:43 PM 834 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:26:01 PM 765 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:30:45 PM 709 Views
Personally I'm kind of sick of Rand being the only person killing FS! - 07/01/2010 09:42:57 PM 886 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:56:02 PM 820 Views
OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 07/01/2010 10:30:19 PM 797 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 01:53:25 PM 751 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 02:56:41 PM 809 Views
What might work... - 08/01/2010 12:35:17 PM 720 Views
Re: What might work... - 08/01/2010 11:38:09 PM 742 Views
Yes. Anakin Skywalker all over again - 06/01/2010 11:01:02 PM 894 Views
Meh - 06/01/2010 11:30:24 PM 742 Views
The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:33:32 PM 746 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:50:37 PM 824 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:55:03 PM 769 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 802 Views
*laughs behind hand* - 07/01/2010 12:05:54 AM 877 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 07/01/2010 12:23:11 AM 745 Views
I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 12:52:25 AM 750 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 01:24:32 AM 814 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 03:33:52 PM 754 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 04:28:18 PM 898 Views
right cause all Generals are so well versed in medical conditions - 07/01/2010 09:44:09 PM 853 Views
Nice way to avoid the argument. - 07/01/2010 10:00:17 PM 809 Views
I'm just done talking in circles. You seem to think that because people - 07/01/2010 11:53:05 PM 841 Views
I concede - 07/01/2010 01:09:11 AM 735 Views
You weren't wrong overall, but there were some serious flaws in your reasoning. - 07/01/2010 02:43:17 AM 843 Views
Tee hee. - 07/01/2010 05:28:52 AM 794 Views
Morals are subjective anyhow, - 07/01/2010 06:23:09 AM 830 Views
Re: Morals are subjective anyhow, - 07/01/2010 03:23:59 PM 751 Views
I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 12:00:02 AM 825 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 05:56:16 PM 983 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 18/01/2010 01:00:23 PM 1092 Views
Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 11/01/2010 04:47:10 PM 720 Views
Re: Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 18/01/2010 12:49:26 PM 760 Views

Reply to Message