Both sides have some quotes against them, but neither says an angreal multiplies or adds more for a stronger channeler. That has absolutely no evidence for it.
View original post
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.
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.
I agree. I also don't think a multiplier would work the way Rand's angreal did when he used it with the Choedan Kal against Asmodean. Asmodean and Rand both got exactly half of the CK, which doesn't make sense if it multiplied their strength. And then Rand was able to use his angreal at the same time, and it only added a small trickle. It didn't multiply the amount he was drawing through the CK. Unless angreal have some way of knowing your potential, rather than the amount of the OP you're drawing, I don't see how Rand only got a trickle more when also using the CK.
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.
I think the simplest explanation was that Elayne was wrong. Or, most angreal are "weak", and stronger ones are incredibly rare.
Perhaps there are both multipliers and additive angreal.
Seems to complicated to me to be the true answer here.
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66
- 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM
2290 Views
Uhhh...
- 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM
1217 Views
Yet there are problems with either
- 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM
912 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either
- 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM
1161 Views
random thought on Shielding
- 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM
1088 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though.
- 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM
1149 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this
- 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM
1000 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness
- 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM
913 Views
it's a visualization thing really
- 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM
968 Views
Not the crux of the debate...
- 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM
1037 Views
Not really though
- 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM
822 Views
I always explained it as
- 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM
1050 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
934 Views
That's precisely my point
- 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM
1066 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence
- 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM
874 Views
There's actual evidence:
- 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM
1079 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
1201 Views
Whoa..
- 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM
1150 Views
Not at all
- 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM
1091 Views
Wonderful
- 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM
1066 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
884 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
1188 Views
Hmmm....
- 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM
1125 Views
Let me clear this up
- 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM
1267 Views
Some more quotes
- 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM
1041 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise
- 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM
1316 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise
- 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM
1097 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise
- 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM
1253 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise
- 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM
1034 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing
- 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM
944 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing...
- 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM
869 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw
- 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM
890 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other?
- 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM
937 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me
- 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM
879 Views
Simple
- 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM
1008 Views
Not at all
- 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM
779 Views
Huh?
- 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM
1000 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way 
*NM*
- 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM
539 Views
*NM*
- 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM
539 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM*
- 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM
514 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position.
- 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM
897 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position.
- 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM
914 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true
- 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM
1007 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this
- 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM
991 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this
- 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM
920 Views
Uhhh...
- 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM
1067 Views
Funny, I just saw this post
- 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM
798 Views