Active Users:387 Time:21/04/2025 10:22:16 AM
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 1667 Views
You should include quotes TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 855 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 911 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 841 Views
Sure, I agree... Shannow - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 780 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 813 Views
Please elaborate... Shannow - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 804 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 766 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. Shannow - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 793 Views
How generous of you. TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 870 Views
Scrap that TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 779 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle Insomdeon - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 954 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... Shannow - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 822 Views
I could have sprayed TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 779 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 361 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* Blaine - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 395 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 860 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take fionwe1987 - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 848 Views
Wrong place *ignore* Sidious - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 745 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 724 Views
I do *NM* Sidious - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 320 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* TheCrownless - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 342 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* taura-tierno - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 763 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 357 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? TheUltimateReality - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 820 Views
You are missing two important points PatAtt - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 956 Views
Response to both points... Shannow - 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM 843 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 729 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 780 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow Marshall - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 756 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" Corwin - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1231 Views
Oh, also Corwin - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 800 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* Marshall - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 351 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory Jim - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 693 Views
Probably Sidious - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1124 Views
Agreed, with one point Marshall - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 731 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... fionwe1987 - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 741 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt Ryan - 13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM 771 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... Tedtheman - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 643 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... Tedtheman - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 748 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books BlackAdder - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 684 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books taura-tierno - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 709 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes