Active Users:361 Time:05/04/2025 04:07:01 AM
Funny, I just saw this post darius_sedai Send a noteboard - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM

Okay one last attempt here.

Channeler has strength 75, but we know a person can draw an amount beyond their maximum up to the point where they burnout and die. For the sake of argument let's assume that number is 80. If someone can draw more than this much above their maximum it would seem odd given how many times we've heard about the dangers of overdrawing.

If an angreal is additive it gives an additional strength of 100 (for simplicity sake) meaning the channeler in question can draw 175 very safely. But the angreal prevents the channeler from drawing beyond this, in other words it has a buffer. If the angreal has no buffer our channeler can pull in more power up to 180 before they burnout and die. The angreal can't offer more than 100 but the channeler still can't draw in beyond their physical limitations.

However, if an angreal is a magnifier of 2x magnitude it's somewhat different in terms of how a non-buffer would end up working. With a buffer our channeler can use 150 with no issues, but without the buffer the number jumps to 160 before they die because they've drawn in 80 on their own and the angreal is doubling that ... Meaning they have pulled in 2x beyond the normal burnout and die increase (10 more instead of 5 more). This clearly increases with the intensity of the angreal so with a 10x magnifier our channeler would be drawing in 800 before death rather than the "safe" 750. Alternatively a lack of a buffer could mean that a multiplier angreal can actually increase from being 10x to say 15x but no longer protects the channeler from the additional influx of power, thus our channeler can draw up to 1,125 or potentially up to 1,200 before death.

Why I see this as important is because an angreal that offers a fixed amount of OP doesn't increase the amount of OP that causes burnout and death so there are still relatively small limits to overdrawing, something like 5-10 v. Potentially massive limits of 50-100. And the fact that they are no longer drawing through the angreal in an additive model, they are only able to draw a fixed amount with an additive angreal whereas a multiplier fits the narrative of "drawing even deeper through the angreal" that we've heard over and over.

Domani Drag Queen in the White Tower ... Aran'gar watch out!
This message last edited by darius_sedai on 18/09/2016 at 08:39:23 PM
Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 2448 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1140 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1293 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 987 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1245 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1101 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1131 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1229 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1073 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 991 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1037 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1084 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 897 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1119 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 1013 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1107 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 943 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1115 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 1275 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1184 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1160 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1140 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 957 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 1237 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 526 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1204 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1339 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1117 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1390 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1139 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1313 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1102 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1015 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1199 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1382 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 944 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 965 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1003 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 967 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1086 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 847 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1074 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 569 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 534 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 969 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 981 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1080 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1033 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 986 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1133 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 873 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 905 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 826 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 773 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 969 Views

Reply to Message