Active Users:1163 Time:22/11/2024 06:32:59 PM
OK, I'll humour you. This once. Shannow Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM
An angreal magnifies the Power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. If that individual is part of a circle, he/she will merely add a greater amount of Power to the circle, thanks to the angreal.


You sure on that? Like I said, I haven't done a re-read in a while but if you could provide quotes from the books/RJ I'd be willing to accept it.

Also, in the Asmodean/Rand case, they were equally balanced because at the time, they were equal in strength. Rand was not yet at his full power, and he was not in good physical shape. The net result was that he and Asmodean were perfectly matched when they shared access to the Choedan Kal.

Rand was still stronger than Asmodean at that point, they were both in bad physical condition after the chase, so I dont think that argument holds much water.

For me angreals only make sense if a major part of it's calculation is channelers power + "X", wether there is another part of the equation (eg. channelers power x 5 + "X";) or not is up for debate, but a straight out multiplier wouldn't work.


On what basis do you say that Rand was DEFINITELY stronger than Asmodean at that point?

And on what basis do you say that a straight magnifier doesn't work for angreal?


On the basis that weaker people could never use the CK, which the multiplier effect does not explain.

As for Asmodean, I cant see their being much difference in fatigue to give him any advantage.
Then if you look at a book or two later he goes toe to toe with Lanfear (each possessing an angreal) and does pretty well. Asmodean could never have done this, despite probably being close to her in strength, she had vast ammounts of skill, for Rand not to be instantly crushed he'd have to be stronger than her in the power.

Rand was probably close to fully developed in terms of how much he could channel by his dual with Rahvin, also Asmodean (admitedly in his character) runs from Rand.

Either way it's a matter of opinion, I'd like to hear Sidious or (god forbid) Cannoli's view which I suspect would put the issue to bed, as they could provide quotes to say one way or another.

As it is I'm in halls without my books so I couldn't find the quotes if I wanted to.


I'm not going to go back and look for quotes that we've discussed scores of times over the last 10 years, but I will give you a quick recap on the basics, this once.

Rand himself says in the first few chapters of Book 5, and I quote from memory: "He had thought he was strong before, but Asmodean's teachings were making him stronger."

This is proof that he was not at full strength yet in Book 4.

Secondly, it is stated numerous times in the series that physical exhaustion reduces the amount of Power you can channel. During the confrontation with Asmodean at the end of Book 4, Rand himself states that he hadn't gotten enough sleep in recent days, and that he was exhausted. Even holding on to the Source, was a struggle for him.

Those are two clear pieces of evidence that Rand is significantly below his full potential when he confronts Asmodean in Rhuidean.

Now, regarding the multiplier effect in angreal and sa'angreal:

How does the "additive" effect in sa'angreal explain the minimum strength threshold for their use any better than the multiplier effect does?

Surely, if sa'angreal simply gave you access to a predetermined reservoir of the Power, your unaided strength level would be irrelevant?

I see no problem with the fact that angreal are pure multipliers of One Power strength, as are sa'angreal, with the added requirement that the most powerful sa'angreal can only be accessed by channelers of a certain minimum strength.

The problem with your argument, is that the minimum strength requirement is not in any way a diferentiator between the multiplier and additive models of sa'angreal operation.
This message last edited by Shannow on 12/11/2009 at 05:48:21 PM
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1581 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 766 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 823 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 12:37:46 PM 749 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 691 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 02:27:41 PM 729 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 734 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 688 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 711 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 789 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 699 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 871 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 741 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 702 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 850 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 328 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 363 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 765 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 757 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 660 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 645 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 288 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 302 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 688 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 733 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 851 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 680 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1141 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 717 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 317 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 619 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1038 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 649 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 657 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 563 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 662 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 605 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 628 Views

Reply to Message