Active Users:318 Time:21/04/2025 09:30:06 AM
I completely agree with you Shannow Marshall Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM
I even think that, for the sake of the next two books, we should compile a list of quotes throughout the book mentioning the effects of angreal and sa'angreal, as well as instances of people using them and the relative amounts of power used.

I believe, although I'm not positive, that a full circle cannot utilize an angreal or sa'angreal--it will only magnify the holder's strength. And by strength, in this case, I mean the amount of power that channer X is capable of wielding at that particular moment. A sa'angreal, while it would change Egwene's trickle into something much marger, may not have been enough to account for the amount of power she wielded. And it certainly should not have multiplied the strength of the entire Link.
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1667 Views
You should include quotes - 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. - 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. - 12/11/2009 12:37:46 PM 841 Views
Sure, I agree... - 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. - 12/11/2009 02:27:41 PM 812 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 803 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 766 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 793 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 870 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 779 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 954 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 820 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 779 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 926 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 361 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 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... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 860 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 846 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 745 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 724 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 320 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 342 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 763 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 818 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 956 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 756 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1231 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 800 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 351 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 693 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1124 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 731 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 741 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 643 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 748 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 683 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 709 Views

Reply to Message