Active Users:439 Time:09/04/2026 12:13:18 AM
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 1844 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 1019 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1095 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 990 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 954 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 974 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 953 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 947 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 970 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1044 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 927 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1121 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 990 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 950 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1107 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 446 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 492 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1064 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1044 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 936 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 890 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 396 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 410 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 930 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 978 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1179 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 920 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1445 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 973 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 429 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 861 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1309 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 886 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 941 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 841 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 932 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 850 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 872 Views

Reply to Message