Active Users:1078 Time:22/11/2024 10:24:45 AM
I don't necessarily think that's true darius_sedai Send a noteboard - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM

View original post
View original post
I think we just see it differently ... I'm not really sure RJ had this clearly mapped out. Especially since it seems like there weren't even side notes on the subject

Well, okay, but I don't see any viable alternative explanation. If you seriously think a buffer-less sa'angreal can allow for unlimited magnification of the OP, Callandor and Vora's wand are obviously more powerful than the CK, which means Lanfear was wrong about Callandor, as are the Glossaries, the BWB, and the Companion!

But it's the only logical conclusion when we consider angreal as a "pool of additive power" ... for me it's easier to understand how a magnifier model could create burnout levels of power when a buffer is missing because there is essentially no cap on access to the power here. Compared to an additive model it just doesn't make sense to me that a lack of a buffer allows access to additional power beyond what the angreal was designed for.

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 1215 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 909 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1158 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1024 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1086 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1147 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 999 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 911 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 966 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 820 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 932 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 872 Views
There's actual evidence: - 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 - 22/01/2016 03:28:16 PM 1200 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 882 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 1187 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 487 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1125 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1265 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 1251 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 1306 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 867 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 889 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 933 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 876 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1005 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 777 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 538 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 895 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 912 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 917 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1065 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 797 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 673 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 887 Views

Reply to Message