Do you still stick by the exponential theory?
TheCrownless Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM
Because for me thats still the best explanation I've seen on how they work.
Seems to explain how the smaller the angreal the more benefit it offers to the stronger channeler, while something like the CK varies by next to nothing for those strong enough to channel it.
Thats what I was trying to get at with my 'X' + multiplier suggestion, but yours works better mathematically.
Seems to explain how the smaller the angreal the more benefit it offers to the stronger channeler, while something like the CK varies by next to nothing for those strong enough to channel it.
Thats what I was trying to get at with my 'X' + multiplier suggestion, but yours works better mathematically.
Come to the dark side, We have candy!
I'm Israel, he's Palestine, its more fun when you pick sides.
I'm Israel, he's Palestine, its more fun when you pick sides.
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
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
710 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle
- 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM
871 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal?
- 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM
849 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
*NM*
sa'angreal and angreal are only different in terms of the magnitude of their effects *NM*
- 12/11/2009 06:56:43 PM
325 Views
You are missing two important points
- 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM
851 Views
Response to both points...
- 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM
750 Views
In fact, I've just read the actual report, and Sanderson didn't say anything near what you quoted.
- 12/11/2009 06:06:39 PM
652 Views
Re: Look at how similar descriptions of angreal and Sa'angreal affects are in the books.
- 12/11/2009 07:34:16 PM
700 Views
Probably
- 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM
1038 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work...
- 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM
657 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt
- 13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM
673 Views