Shadowspawn are corrupted versions of real living creatures - humans/trollocs, wolves/darkhounds, etc. They breed and create their own offspring, hence the word spawn.
Gholam do not breed, are not created from living creatures and cannot be described as spawn. They were constructed using some combination of the One and True Powers. Essentially they are walking, talking, killing ter'angreal.
There is no reason to think that weapons that are effective against shadowspawn will work on Gholam, and indeed we've seen time and again that this is the case.
The Gholam is definitely Shadowspawn. Additionally, all Shadowspawn are constructs. All constructs - except the Gholam, which apparently is a "higher level" of Shadowspawn - are affected by deathgates.
Gholam do not breed, are not created from living creatures and cannot be described as spawn. They were constructed using some combination of the One and True Powers. Essentially they are walking, talking, killing ter'angreal.
There is no reason to think that weapons that are effective against shadowspawn will work on Gholam, and indeed we've seen time and again that this is the case.
Gholam are not shadowspawn. They do not breed. They were constructs and as such are not affected by 'deathgates'.
The Gholam is definitely Shadowspawn. Additionally, all Shadowspawn are constructs. All constructs - except the Gholam, which apparently is a "higher level" of Shadowspawn - are affected by deathgates.
An annoying gateway error.
- 24/12/2010 04:52:54 AM
2121 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error.
- 24/12/2010 10:23:23 AM
1334 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error.
- 24/12/2010 03:41:10 PM
1154 Views
I dissagree
- 24/12/2010 07:09:41 PM
1135 Views
Yes, RJ confirmed that Shadowspawn can't survive gateways. *NM*
- 24/12/2010 07:39:02 PM
495 Views
And then BS confirmed that gholam are "more perfected" Shadowspawn which can. 
*NM*
- 24/12/2010 08:35:34 PM
495 Views
*NM*
- 24/12/2010 08:35:34 PM
495 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error.
- 24/12/2010 11:29:33 AM
1062 Views
"They had not known where-or if-the gholam would attack him"
- 25/12/2010 12:27:02 AM
1000 Views
Re: "They had not known where-or if-the gholam would attack him"
- 25/12/2010 02:05:07 AM
968 Views
They prepared a place, and it just happened to be within walking distance of the attack?
- 25/12/2010 09:44:34 AM
943 Views
Please re-read the chapter. It expalins a lot.
- 25/12/2010 04:05:50 PM
1023 Views
Your quote shows what happened.
- 26/12/2010 05:33:44 AM
924 Views
Likely picked from a handful of pre-determined locations based on where and when the attack occurred
- 31/12/2010 08:47:20 PM
990 Views
Perhaps, but I don't think so.
- 01/01/2011 01:19:12 AM
819 Views
Not realty. Caemlyn is huge by the standards of the time but realistically it's tiny
- 01/01/2011 06:05:06 AM
864 Views
The sizes I proposed are not huge (well, they would be by standards in the middle ages but not now)
- 04/01/2011 06:37:50 AM
797 Views
I believe Caemlyn is less than 300k people .... That's what .05% the size of London?
- 30/01/2011 06:02:50 PM
838 Views
You aren't seriously comparing modern population densities to medieval ones, are you? *NM*
- 30/01/2011 09:23:57 PM
466 Views
That would be an error if it hadn't been Skimming (the platform and what not) they were using.
- 25/12/2010 02:29:39 AM
899 Views
It is an error because they opened a skimming gateway to the house (from the skimming place)
- 25/12/2010 09:47:08 AM
911 Views
I'm confused now as to what you're arguing. They knew the location of the house.
- 26/12/2010 08:54:17 PM
883 Views
You need to know more than just where you are going
- 27/12/2010 06:59:21 AM
905 Views
Please find me a supporting quote in one of the books.
- 27/12/2010 12:48:45 PM
916 Views
Well, from Encyclopaedia WOT, and aCoS
- 28/12/2010 01:02:42 AM
1014 Views
I stand corrected. Though I will say that the uses in the books don't match the definition.
- 28/12/2010 02:17:43 PM
967 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error.
- 24/12/2010 12:22:38 PM
1050 Views