Active Users:554 Time:08/01/2026 03:15:14 PM
Agreed, with one point Marshall Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM
I don't believe that your level of exhaustion has to do with the actual amount of power you draw. If Rand, without an angreal, channeled at his max for 4 hours straight, he'd be pretty exhausted afterwards. If he used an angreal that doubled his strength, do you think he'd be twice as tired? Doubtful, considering he wasn't dead after using the CK.
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1799 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 969 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1042 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 949 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 904 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 938 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 918 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 899 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 927 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1006 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 890 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1073 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 949 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 906 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1058 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 418 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 469 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1012 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 996 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 885 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 842 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 378 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 396 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 892 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 931 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1118 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 870 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1389 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 920 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 412 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 811 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1265 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 846 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 891 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 801 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 886 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 797 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 825 Views

Reply to Message