Active Users:1101 Time:22/11/2024 06:19:09 PM
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... Tedtheman Send a noteboard - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM
I nearly made a post about this, but decided not to because Brandon himself said he was unsure how they worked. According to Brandon angreal may be multipliers but sa'angreal provide a fixed amount of the One Power.

I'd agree with you and Shannow that sa'angreal are multipliers too, not granters of fixed amounts of power. However, if RJ's notes state otherwise, I don't think anything in the text exists to prove it wrong.
I also don't agree with this. The first evidence we have of this is Siuan saying that a strong Aes Sedai could crumple the walls of Tar Valon with Vora's sa'angreal. That means that a weak one would not, and therefore not all channelers gain the same amount of saidar from the sa'angreal, which strongly indicates that Vora's wand is a multiplier.

Or it could mean that a weak Aes Sedai could not use the sa'angreal at all.
I considered this, then dismissed it since the weakened Siuan used it in tGS.
I can come up with two explanations for why weak-Siuan could use it, and still not crumple the walls of Tar Valon:

1) Maybe RJ had it that if a channelers strength is reduced by means like forkroot, shields, stilling, etc., it does not change what sa'angreal they can use or not use. Given that Brandon said there were specific notes about sa'angreal useage by people made weaker, this may well be true.

2) This is more convoluted. It may be that a sa'angreal will allow anyone to draw amount X of the power. However, for each sa'angreal, a user has to be of a certain strength to be able to draw X amount without their connection to the source being destroyed. Thus, a weak woman like Siuan can use these sa'angreal, but if she attempts to draw its full strength, she will be burned out. It could be that the same is the case with the CK.
Secondly, when Elza draws on Callandor through Narishma, it glows like a flame. When Rand uses it, it is so bright that you can't even see that it's a sword. It's another indication that Rand gains more from Callandor.

This could simply be because Rand is drawing through Callandor minus a buffer, so he's overdrawing, whereas in a circle, Narishma can only draw to its set amount.
As for Egwene, it's possible that if the leader of the circle gets hold of a sa'angreal or angreal, the whole circle is augmented. This is further substantiated by the scene where Siuan Heals Mat while using Vora's wand, and in the end every Aes Sedai is tired and sweating - another indication that they all drew on great amounts of saidar for a prolonged time. I'm not sticking up for this theory too much, but I do think it's a possibility.

Can't agree with this.If this were the case, Elayne would have had Nynaeve hand over her angreal to Caire for using the Bowl. The strength multiplication would have been much greater in that case.


there is also the fact that the bowl is the first scene of multiple 'angreal' usage weve seen. They may not have thought about it to that logical end, IE amplifying the circle.
Reply to message
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 822 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
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 691 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
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 789 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 698 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 871 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 741 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 702 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 644 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 287 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 302 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 687 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 732 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 851 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 680 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1141 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 717 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 317 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 619 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1038 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 649 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 657 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 563 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 662 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 604 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 627 Views

Reply to Message