Active Users:757 Time:14/09/2026 03:15:19 PM
Oh, also Corwin Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM

This theory can help to explain the whole Rand/Asmodean confrontation in Rhuidean, when both were tapping into the Choedan Kal. The results of Sidious' formula for determining strength in the Power with the Choedan Kal show that Rand and Verin, despite their vast difference in unaided potential in the Power, come very close to being able to channel an equivalent amount. Asmodean is much closer to Rand than Verin is, so even if Rand and Asmodean were not exactly equivalent in strength at this point, they would be close enough that it really wouldn't matter who was marginally stronger. This incident does not necessarily support the idea that sa'angreal provide a reservoir of Power, instead of an exponential increase.
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1944 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 1131 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1198 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 1078 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 1059 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 1074 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 1080 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 1050 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 1089 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1156 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 1038 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1225 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 1092 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 1048 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1213 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 499 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 538 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1169 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1149 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 1061 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 995 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 449 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 464 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 1045 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 1084 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1306 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 1035 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1573 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 1090 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 485 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 969 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1436 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 991 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 1053 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 960 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 1043 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 971 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 989 Views

Reply to Message