Active Users:921 Time:22/11/2024 12:12:58 PM
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM

View original post

Okay but when Nynaeve shielded Logain she also described how her shield started to bend and almost break. Somehow Berowin has practiced her shielding so that it doesn't actually tear under any circumstances. This leaves the door open for better forms of shielding as I described in my post to Darius. If you can sever a person just by sharpening the edges then there is a lot of potential for tweaking.


I have no argument with Berowin's shield being different. It IS different. My argument is with the idea that the Forsaken use something like her shield. If so, it is remarkable that oth Nynaeve and Rand described shields woven by Moghedien and Lanfear as "walls" when trying to push against them.

The other side of this is that shielding a person while they are channeling isn't exactly the same as holding a shield on them. Do we think Berowin would have been able to cut off Nynaeve had she been channeling as much as she could?

We KNOW that landing a shield on a person channeling is a chancey thing. Nynaeve has told us that, and several of her scenes have demonstrated it. Which is why I'm skeptical that just because we've seen Aes Sedai land shields at some point, and not at others, we should ignore the evidence that their shields are similar to the Forsaken's.


We also have Suroth saying that Liandrin is "blocked in some way" and that may point to a different type of shield....? It's all reaching but there may be a science to shielding beyond "weave and throw".

Well Liandrin was blocked in some way. Suroth, as a non-channeler, doesn't necessarily have to use the word shield. In fact, we know the Forsaken use the word "buffer" for a shield, and we know the Seanchan call shields "blocks":
“I have borne the bracelet long, and I could tell if the marath’damane had done more than block Jini.”

This is the Sul'dam Rand and Aviendha encounter in tFoH. She calls Aviendha's shield a block, so it seems reasonable to assume another Sul'dam/damane used similar terminology to descirbe Liandrin's shield to Suroth.

Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 2290 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1078 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 1037 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 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 933 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 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 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 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 1096 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 1034 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 914 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 991 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 1067 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 865 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 758 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