Active Users:970 Time:16/09/2025 01:41:51 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 1662 Views
I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:07:33 AM 1066 Views
On Balefire - 06/01/2010 04:43:18 AM 1065 Views
Good point - 06/01/2010 05:04:26 AM 1110 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 897 Views
Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:10:33 AM 1021 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:20:02 AM 928 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 837 Views
Re: I disagree - 07/01/2010 04:42:40 AM 818 Views
I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 07:30:56 AM 973 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 03:32:24 PM 878 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 09:52:47 PM 949 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 11:19:56 PM 856 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:21:50 AM 924 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:56:26 AM 857 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 01:46:16 AM 915 Views
I agree with Templar - 09/01/2010 04:36:20 PM 840 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 07:57:54 AM 958 Views
Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 02:36:42 PM 963 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 803 Views
Doesn't Balefire remove your thread from the Pattern permanently? - 06/01/2010 02:55:38 PM 943 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 873 Views
What? - 06/01/2010 06:20:56 PM 884 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 482 Views
LOL ... super-death! - 06/01/2010 11:59:31 PM 821 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 833 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:33 AM 807 Views
Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 06:51:15 PM 933 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 896 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 10:47:11 PM 890 Views
let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:26:43 PM 895 Views
Re: let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:40:56 PM 887 Views
actually that quote supports my thoughts - 06/01/2010 11:50:40 PM 911 Views
Re: actually that quote supports my thoughts - 07/01/2010 12:10:07 AM 840 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 936 Views
Sigh. What mass murder? - 07/01/2010 12:15:01 AM 787 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 862 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:57:43 PM 871 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 831 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 08:56:43 PM 898 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:26:01 PM 847 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 954 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:56:02 PM 890 Views
OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 07/01/2010 10:30:19 PM 876 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 01:53:25 PM 843 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 784 Views
Re: What might work... - 08/01/2010 11:38:09 PM 809 Views
Yes. Anakin Skywalker all over again - 06/01/2010 11:01:02 PM 969 Views
Meh - 06/01/2010 11:30:24 PM 807 Views
The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:33:32 PM 814 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:50:37 PM 896 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:55:03 PM 856 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 863 Views
*laughs behind hand* - 07/01/2010 12:05:54 AM 939 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 813 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 01:24:32 AM 879 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 03:33:52 PM 827 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 04:28:18 PM 967 Views
right cause all Generals are so well versed in medical conditions - 07/01/2010 09:44:09 PM 917 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 906 Views
I concede - 07/01/2010 01:09:11 AM 805 Views
You weren't wrong overall, but there were some serious flaws in your reasoning. - 07/01/2010 02:43:17 AM 913 Views
Tee hee. - 07/01/2010 05:28:52 AM 877 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 816 Views
I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 12:00:02 AM 895 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 1187 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 831 Views

Reply to Message