Active Users:375 Time:27/04/2025 06:24:59 AM
Re: Wrong aven Send a noteboard - 25/12/2010 02:59:55 AM
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.



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.
Reply to message
An annoying gateway error. - 24/12/2010 04:52:54 AM 2126 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error. - 24/12/2010 10:23:23 AM 1339 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error. - 24/12/2010 03:41:10 PM 1160 Views
I dissagree - 24/12/2010 07:09:41 PM 1139 Views
Yes, RJ confirmed that Shadowspawn can't survive gateways. *NM* - 24/12/2010 07:39:02 PM 498 Views
And then BS confirmed that gholam are "more perfected" Shadowspawn which can. *NM* - 24/12/2010 08:35:34 PM 498 Views
Read the post I responded too. I know that. - 26/12/2010 11:58:40 AM 1045 Views
Why would them not being able to survive a gateway be a problem? - 26/01/2011 05:36:09 AM 860 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error. - 24/12/2010 11:29:33 AM 1070 Views
What he said. No error. *NM* - 24/12/2010 01:01:23 PM 465 Views
"They had not known where-or if-the gholam would attack him" - 25/12/2010 12:27:02 AM 1007 Views
Re: "They had not known where-or if-the gholam would attack him" - 25/12/2010 02:05:07 AM 974 Views
They prepared a place, and it just happened to be within walking distance of the attack? - 25/12/2010 09:44:34 AM 951 Views
Please re-read the chapter. It expalins a lot. - 25/12/2010 04:05:50 PM 1030 Views
Your quote shows what happened. - 26/12/2010 05:33:44 AM 930 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 1002 Views
Perhaps, but I don't think so. - 01/01/2011 01:19:12 AM 826 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 907 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 918 Views
Gateways - 25/12/2010 12:20:13 PM 892 Views
Re: Gateways - 26/12/2010 02:20:14 AM 904 Views
Re: Gateways - 26/12/2010 03:53:05 AM 829 Views
Re: Gateways - 26/12/2010 05:16:48 AM 1048 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 890 Views
You need to know more than just where you are going - 27/12/2010 06:59:21 AM 911 Views
Please find me a supporting quote in one of the books. - 27/12/2010 12:48:45 PM 924 Views
Re: Please find me a supporting quote in one of the books. - 27/12/2010 03:11:26 PM 836 Views
Skimming - 27/12/2010 06:24:12 PM 898 Views
Well, from Encyclopaedia WOT, and aCoS - 28/12/2010 01:02:42 AM 1023 Views
Not that hard if you think about it - 30/01/2011 09:39:34 PM 955 Views
get over it - 25/12/2010 06:20:14 PM 859 Views
ok? *NM* - 26/12/2010 02:21:24 AM 518 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error. - 24/12/2010 12:22:38 PM 1055 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error. - 24/12/2010 06:22:54 PM 824 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error. - 24/12/2010 06:31:38 PM 834 Views
Very good point. Thank you for clearing that up! *NM* - 24/12/2010 09:50:47 PM 441 Views
Wrong - 24/12/2010 10:03:26 PM 1003 Views
Re: Wrong - 24/12/2010 11:49:12 PM 925 Views
Re: Wrong - 25/12/2010 02:59:55 AM 908 Views
Re: Wrong - 25/12/2010 09:51:54 AM 842 Views
Re: Wrong - 27/12/2010 06:34:39 PM 919 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error. - 31/12/2010 08:44:17 PM 945 Views

Reply to Message