Active Users:1076 Time:22/11/2024 11:11:17 AM
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw darius_sedai Send a noteboard - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM

If a sa'angreal is a pool of additive power how can lacking a buffer and the ability to overdraw as Egwene did even exist? She seemingly took in a vastly larger amount of saidar than she previously held and that makes little sense if the devices hold a fixed amount of additive power.

Perhaps the buffers are the actual key here. Perhaps the buffers limit an individual based on their potential, only allowing a fixed additive amount that the individual can manage (thus explaining Verin's quote about the CK). This would allow for Elayne to use the turtle to become 2x Nynaeve, but Nynaeve's higher potential would give her access to higher additive potential because the buffer would naturally limit Elayne more? Problem here is the very weak angreal such as Cadsuane and Graendal possess don't make sense since they wouldn't need buffers at all given how little power they access. Or the very strong angreal that clearly show that Egwene/Vora level can match Taim/Sakarnen. Vastly more power than any angreal would add to any individual.

Perhaps Sidious is correct and we'll just have to file this under "nerd dissatisfaction"

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 2289 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1077 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1216 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 910 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1159 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1025 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1087 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1148 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 912 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 967 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1035 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 821 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1048 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 933 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1064 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 873 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 1148 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1090 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1064 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 883 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
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 488 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1125 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1266 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1039 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1314 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1095 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1252 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1032 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1129 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1307 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 868 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 935 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 877 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1006 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 778 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 998 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *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 896 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 913 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1005 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 989 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 918 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1065 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 798 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 863 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 757 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 674 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 888 Views

Reply to Message