Active Users:683 Time:13/12/2025 01:25:38 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 1787 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 954 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1021 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 938 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 882 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 922 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 907 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 883 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 909 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 993 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 879 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1059 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 933 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 895 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1039 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 410 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 464 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 996 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 980 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 871 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 830 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 371 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 393 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 880 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 918 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1098 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 857 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1367 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 907 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 404 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 797 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1251 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 833 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 873 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 773 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 874 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 788 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 810 Views

Reply to Message