RJ never really went into the OP defying properties of C. The fireballs are pure weaves of fire, no weave, no fire, no heat. We also do not know about the heat transferance properties of C. For all we know it could pass heat like tin foil, or be so resistant to it you could hold it in your hand while someone plays a palsma torch over it. We just don't know. Lightning might or might not be effective. C started as iron, but is it still ferrous? If not, just how perfect an insulator is it? It could be such a high value insulator that lighting will not strike it, again we just don't know.
I agree we can't know if lightning would work or not, but you're the one who asserted that cuendillar would be useful against channelers, so the burden of proof is on you. As for fireballs, heartstone does not break weaves, it's just invulnerable to them, and since as I've mentioned we know that cuendillar requires cracks in the armour, fire could easily seep through. Just because you're wearing something indestructible does not make you indestructible.
An interesting debate might be what would happen if someone wearing C armor got hit by balefire. Balefire is pure OP that burns you out of the pattern backwards, but C is immune to the OP. Would it just wash off you, or could (theoretically) a channeler use enough OP to burn far enough back to before you put it on, or before the armor was converted from iron...
It's much simpler than that. Again, while the armour is resistant to balefire, the person inside is not. We don't even know that cuendillar even deflects balefire, but even if it does, the armour remains full of cracks. For an analogy, a house may not be swept away by a flood, but people and objects inside are not therefore automatically safe.
My position is simple. C armor would not be hard to make, making it would not violate any of the oaths, and C armor is substantially better than normal armor. just how much better is something we can go round and round on because only RJ could have given a definitive answer; but he never did.
Actually,Cuendillar armour would be substantially difficult to make. A soldier wearing one would have a king's fortune on his back.
The first rule of being a ninja is "do no harm". Unless you intend to do harm, then do lots of harm.
~Master Splinter
Victorious in Bergioyn's legendary 'Reverse Mafia'. *MySmiley*
~Master Splinter
Victorious in Bergioyn's legendary 'Reverse Mafia'. *MySmiley*
Functional Cuendillar Armor: Possible or impossible?
- 10/02/2012 04:45:34 PM
1415 Views
You posted this exact same question one year ago, with a lot of discussion
- 10/02/2012 06:29:28 PM
862 Views
I suppose I am on a...
- 10/02/2012 11:00:47 PM
771 Views
Re: You posted this exact same question one year ago, with a lot of discussion
- 10/02/2012 11:04:33 PM
918 Views
Re: You posted this exact same question one year ago, with a lot of discussion
- 11/02/2012 01:37:27 PM
962 Views
My thought was always about weapons.
- 11/02/2012 06:31:45 AM
932 Views
Certainly possible, but given the effort most women have to put toward changing even a small item
- 12/02/2012 05:10:35 AM
855 Views
Ummm, Warders...
- 14/02/2012 01:39:23 PM
699 Views
How would Cuendillar armour help against channelers?
- 14/02/2012 07:58:58 PM
770 Views
It can not be directly effected by the OP
- 14/02/2012 09:08:57 PM
668 Views
some simple ideas for defeating warders armoured such.
- 14/02/2012 09:52:41 PM
808 Views
Re: some simple ideas for defeating warders armoured such.
- 14/02/2012 10:54:26 PM
650 Views
which way is it?
- 15/02/2012 04:14:41 AM
666 Views
Actually I'd call the Seanchan tactically inferior to the White Tower in using the power
- 15/02/2012 01:48:55 PM
783 Views
That's really not my point.
- 15/02/2012 03:21:15 PM
661 Views
I never said that they could not be stopped
- 15/02/2012 01:58:41 PM
761 Views
I really think you're over-estimating how difficult it would be.
- 15/02/2012 03:22:44 PM
700 Views
Not nesecarrily
- 15/02/2012 04:01:45 PM
708 Views
You just said that most of their tactics are indirect.
- 15/02/2012 05:44:22 PM
813 Views
..and you are creating new tactics
- 15/02/2012 06:32:02 PM
652 Views
*shrug* I don't see it as some world-shaking action
- 15/02/2012 08:47:40 PM
671 Views
But it is brand new, and if you're digging holes earth-shaking seems discriptive 
- 15/02/2012 09:14:12 PM
701 Views
- 15/02/2012 09:14:12 PM
701 Views
Not accurate
- 15/02/2012 03:54:00 PM
774 Views
You are thinking too far inside the box
- 15/02/2012 04:23:28 PM
745 Views
I disagree
- 15/02/2012 04:43:33 PM
713 Views
If armor is of no benefit...
- 15/02/2012 06:19:30 PM
617 Views
Missing my point ... Cuendillar armor is impractical not useless
- 15/02/2012 07:00:48 PM
749 Views
nope
- 15/02/2012 07:21:03 PM
639 Views
*Shrug*
- 15/02/2012 08:28:48 PM
768 Views
Re: *Shrug*
- 15/02/2012 09:07:24 PM
929 Views
No way they could pull off what you are talking about with current tech
- 16/02/2012 01:55:19 AM
712 Views
Re: No way they could pull off what you are talking about with current tech
- 16/02/2012 03:23:34 PM
646 Views
Re: It can not be directly effected by the OP
- 15/02/2012 02:37:40 AM
656 Views
Maybe, maybe not
- 15/02/2012 02:12:59 PM
633 Views
Re: Maybe, maybe not
- 15/02/2012 06:11:42 PM
778 Views
I'll happily amend my initial statement to "maybe even challeling ones"
- 15/02/2012 07:03:48 PM
668 Views
what a lot of people are forgetting with their suggestions of plate armor...
- 13/02/2012 02:36:50 PM
834 Views
Your understanding of how plate armor functions is in error
- 14/02/2012 01:45:37 PM
659 Views
I believe AND I was hoping you would go into the physics of it :p
- 14/02/2012 11:01:18 PM
639 Views