Active Users:486 Time:30/06/2025 11:26:13 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 1697 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 881 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 941 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 869 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 808 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 843 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 832 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 795 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 825 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 901 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 807 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 983 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 853 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 811 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 950 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 371 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 426 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 888 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 876 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 775 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 754 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 332 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 354 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 796 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 848 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 991 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 784 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1264 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 828 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 364 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 724 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1154 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 762 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 770 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 675 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 779 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 710 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 737 Views

Reply to Message