Active Users:414 Time:20/04/2025 01:49:20 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
There is no basis for that conclusion... Shannow Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM
It stands to reason that this would reduce how far back the balefire reaches


Based on the evidence we have thus far, the power of the balefire is directly proportional to the amount of time erased from the Pattern. And the Power of the balefire, in turn, appears to be directly proportional to the thickness of the bar of balefire used.

Moiraine killed Be'lal with a bolt of balefire as thick as her little finger. It took out a couple of seconds of the Pattern.

Rand killed Ra'vin with a bolt of balefire as thick as a man's body. According to Sanderson, it burned between 15 minutes and half an hour backwards through the Pattern.

To take out an entire Castle, it stands to reason that the balefire probably had to be hundreds of metres in diameter.

That's exponentially greater than what was done to Rahvin.
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... Shannow - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1665 Views
You should include quotes TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 854 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. Shannow - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 909 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. Watcher - 12/11/2009 12:37:46 PM 839 Views
Sure, I agree... Shannow - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 779 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 02:27:41 PM 811 Views
Please elaborate... Shannow - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 802 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 765 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. Shannow - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 791 Views
How generous of you. TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 868 Views
Scrap that TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 777 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle Insomdeon - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 951 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... Shannow - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 819 Views
I could have sprayed TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 777 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? fionwe1987 - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 926 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 360 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* Blaine - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 394 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... Shannow - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 857 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take fionwe1987 - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 845 Views
Wrong place *ignore* Sidious - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 743 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 722 Views
I do *NM* Sidious - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 318 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 340 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* taura-tierno - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 759 Views
sa'angreal and angreal are only different in terms of the magnitude of their effects *NM* Marshall - 12/11/2009 06:56:43 PM 355 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? TheUltimateReality - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 818 Views
You are missing two important points PatAtt - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 955 Views
Response to both points... Shannow - 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM 841 Views
In fact, I've just read the actual report, and Sanderson didn't say anything near what you quoted. Shannow - 12/11/2009 06:06:39 PM 727 Views
Re: Look at how similar descriptions of angreal and Sa'angreal affects are in the books. Tedtheman - 12/11/2009 07:34:16 PM 778 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow Marshall - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 754 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" Corwin - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1229 Views
Oh, also Corwin - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 798 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* Marshall - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 349 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory Jim - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 692 Views
Probably Sidious - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1122 Views
Agreed, with one point Marshall - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 730 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... fionwe1987 - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 739 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt Ryan - 13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM 769 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... Tedtheman - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 641 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... Tedtheman - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 746 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books BlackAdder - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 682 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books taura-tierno - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 704 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes