Active Users:1080 Time:22/11/2024 12:57:59 PM
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 2290 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect darius_sedai - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1078 Views
Uhhh... fionwe1987 - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1216 Views
Yet there are problems with either darius_sedai - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 910 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either Sidious - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1159 Views
Would you consider... Duke - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1025 Views
random thought on Shielding darius_sedai - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1087 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. fionwe1987 - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1148 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this darius_sedai - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1000 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness fionwe1987 - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 912 Views
it's a visualization thing really darius_sedai - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 967 Views
Not the crux of the debate... fionwe1987 - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1037 Views
Not really though darius_sedai - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 821 Views
I always explained it as fionwe1987 - 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 darius_sedai - 21/01/2016 09:55:14 PM 933 Views
That's precisely my point fionwe1987 - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1066 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence darius_sedai - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 873 Views
There's actual evidence: fionwe1987 - 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 darius_sedai - 22/01/2016 03:28:16 PM 1201 Views
Whoa.. fionwe1987 - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1150 Views
Not at all darius_sedai - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1091 Views
Wonderful fionwe1987 - 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 darius_sedai - 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 Sidious - 23/01/2016 02:35:33 PM 1188 Views
Petty much *NM* darius_sedai - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 488 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 1266 Views
Some more quotes fionwe1987 - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1041 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise darius_sedai - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1314 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise fionwe1987 - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1097 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise Sidious - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1252 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise fionwe1987 - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1034 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing darius_sedai - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 942 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 1307 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... fionwe1987 - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 868 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw darius_sedai - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 890 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? fionwe1987 - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 935 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me darius_sedai - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 877 Views
Simple fionwe1987 - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1006 Views
Not at all darius_sedai - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 778 Views
Huh? fionwe1987 - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1000 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* darius_sedai - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 539 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 896 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. fionwe1987 - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 914 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true darius_sedai - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1005 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this fionwe1987 - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 991 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this darius_sedai - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 918 Views
Uhhh... fionwe1987 - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1067 Views
Funny, I just saw this post darius_sedai - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 798 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this fionwe1987 - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 865 Views
No it doesn't darius_sedai - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 758 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? Dunstan - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 674 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... Dunstan - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 888 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes