Active Users:815 Time:22/11/2024 06:26:41 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Huh? fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM

View original post
a Channeler is, as you put it above, a living thinking being yet an angreal is an object. What Egwene did was far beyond simply burning herself out by drawing too much power. She shattered the limits of Vora's sa'angreal and destroyed hundreds of channelers as well as another massively powerful sa'angreal etc etc. What you are suggesting amounts to Egwene could have linked with others and been buffered from the negative effects, which in turn means Vora's sa'angreal, if used in a link, is basically a limitless supply of saidar equal to the CK simply because it has no buffer.

No, within a link you can only draw Vora's Wand to its strength limit, which seems to equal Sakarnen. The only way to exceed that is to not have a buffer, ie be a single channeler using it. At that point, you can overdraw, just like you could overdraw if there were no angreal in the picture.
I'd be inclined to agree with this point if Egwene had simply burned out or died but she drew in a massive amount more power than was conceivable.

As can any channeler! Lews Therin didn't simply burn out or die. First, he too drew in massive amounts of the OP, enough to erect a 10km high active volcano! And he wasn't even using an angreal!

See, what Egwene did was first draw in all that Vora's wand can safely allow. Lacking a buffer, she then exceeded this by a little to defeat Taim. Then, she saw that the Sharans were rallying, and the world was just about to receive Bore 2.0, so she drew in even more. I contend that even without Vora's Wand, she would have drawn in a pretty massive amount. Vora's Wand just made the amount that much more impressive (maybe in the CK range, given what she says).


That being said, we can lay that down, in part, to BSand's (and our) limited understanding of how these objects really work. I really hated that plot device, especially because the Aes Sedai are so damn cautious about everything involving the Power, yet somehow Vora's sa'angreal manages to be more powerful than Callandor and flawed yet is still sitting around in the WT

I don't have a problem with either fact. Just with Egwene regularly using it while she was tired despite apparently knowing there is no buffer! That makes no sense. Why wouldn't she mention it? Why wouldn't she join in a circle to prevent accidental overdrawing in those other times?
Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 Sidious - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 2289 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect darius_sedai - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1077 Views
Uhhh... fionwe1987 - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1215 Views
Yet there are problems with either darius_sedai - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 909 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either Sidious - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1158 Views
Would you consider... Duke - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1024 Views
random thought on Shielding darius_sedai - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1086 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. fionwe1987 - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1147 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this darius_sedai - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 999 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness fionwe1987 - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 911 Views
it's a visualization thing really darius_sedai - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 966 Views
Not the crux of the debate... fionwe1987 - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1035 Views
Not really though darius_sedai - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 820 Views
I always explained it as fionwe1987 - 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 darius_sedai - 21/01/2016 09:55:14 PM 932 Views
That's precisely my point fionwe1987 - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1064 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence darius_sedai - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 872 Views
There's actual evidence: fionwe1987 - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1077 Views
what's dense here is that you keep putting in quotes that don't support your position darius_sedai - 22/01/2016 03:28:16 PM 1200 Views
Whoa.. fionwe1987 - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1148 Views
Not at all darius_sedai - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1090 Views
Wonderful fionwe1987 - 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 darius_sedai - 22/01/2016 06:46:23 PM 882 Views
Re: yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this Sidious - 23/01/2016 02:35:33 PM 1187 Views
Petty much *NM* darius_sedai - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 487 Views
Hmmm.... Sidious - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1125 Views
Let me clear this up darius_sedai - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1265 Views
Some more quotes fionwe1987 - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1039 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise darius_sedai - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1313 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise fionwe1987 - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1095 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise Sidious - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1251 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise fionwe1987 - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1031 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing darius_sedai - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 941 Views
Oh well then I agree with you Sidious - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1129 Views
thanks darius_sedai - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1306 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... fionwe1987 - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 867 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw darius_sedai - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 889 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? fionwe1987 - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 933 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me darius_sedai - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 876 Views
Simple fionwe1987 - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1005 Views
Not at all darius_sedai - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 777 Views
Huh? fionwe1987 - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 998 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* darius_sedai - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 538 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* fionwe1987 - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 514 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. darius_sedai - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 895 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. fionwe1987 - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 912 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true darius_sedai - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1004 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this fionwe1987 - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 989 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this darius_sedai - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 917 Views
Uhhh... fionwe1987 - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1065 Views
Funny, I just saw this post darius_sedai - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 797 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this fionwe1987 - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 863 Views
No it doesn't darius_sedai - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 757 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? Dunstan - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 673 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... Dunstan - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 887 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes