Active Users:317 Time:21/04/2025 09:30:04 AM
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 1666 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 910 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 840 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 319 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 341 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 755 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