Active Users:441 Time:04/04/2025 10:25:56 PM
Yet there are problems with either darius_sedai Send a noteboard - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM

View original post
I'm having trouble understanding your interpretation of the "Nynaeve would do better still" argument.

We have two options:

1)Angreal are multipliers: So Elayne's strength gets multiplied by X, and this happens to be twice Nynaeve's strength. For Nynaeve herself, of course, multiplying her strength by X would mean access to even more of the OP.

2) Angreal are additive: there's a lot going for this, especially based on what we know about Seeds now. If so, Elayne's level+X is twice Nynaeve's strength. Obviously, Nynaeve herself would do better if X were added to her greater strength.

In neither scenario do we have to assume that angreal somehow work differently based on your strength. They either add or multiply, and they do so evenly for all channelers.


Multiplier model makes the bracelet vastly too powerful for Rand to have had any chance on the docks. For it to have made Moiraine stronger than her previous level it would have needed to multiplied her new strength by at least 6x (possibly more), but that would have made Lanfear like 5x Rands strength on the docks which seems like a lot even with the fat man angreal. Especially since she had the bracelet before he drew through his angreal.

Additive model has flaws as well,as I mentioned in my earlier post that it doesn't fully explain how the Turtle could make Elayne 2x Nynaeve and still be a "weak" angreal, in fact it would likely be stronger than the bracelet given what we know it will make Moiraine stronger than level 13 but seems unlikely that she would be much beyond that from the way it's phrased.

Perhaps there are both multipliers and additive angreal.

Domani Drag Queen in the White Tower ... Aran'gar watch out!
Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 2445 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1140 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1290 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 986 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1242 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1101 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1129 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1226 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1072 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 988 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1037 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1084 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 897 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1119 Views
There's not much to go on since all the shields except Berowyn's are the same - 21/01/2016 09:55:14 PM 1011 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1105 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 941 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1115 Views
what's dense here is that you keep putting in quotes that don't support your position - 22/01/2016 03:28:16 PM 1273 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1184 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1159 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1139 Views
yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this - 22/01/2016 06:46:23 PM 957 Views
Re: yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this - 23/01/2016 02:35:33 PM 1237 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 526 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1201 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1337 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1117 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1387 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1137 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1313 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1102 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1015 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1196 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1379 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 941 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 963 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1003 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 965 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1085 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 846 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1074 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 569 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 534 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 967 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 979 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1080 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1033 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 984 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1133 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 870 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 905 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 823 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 771 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 969 Views

Reply to Message