Active Users:1105 Time:23/12/2024 04:17:29 PM
I disagree Lord Haart Send a noteboard - 06/01/2010 05:42:44 PM
The bottom line is, I think it is perfectly reasonable of me to think that when Rand balefired Graendals palace, he did this. He used a small amount of what CK could offer to extend the balefire streams width, so that he would take out the entire palace in "one go". But he kept the total strength as low as possible to minimise the damage since he did not want to unmake existence just yet. In doing so he got Graendal (probably) but did not cause immense damage. Some yes, but not anywhere close enough to bring the pattern anywhere near to total destruction which is what Min and Nynaeve seemed to think.


I think there are two factors in Balefire:

1 - Strength (how far back in time the Pattern is burnt out)

2 - Area (how much the balefire affects - this includes the range of the BF)

I see no reason to believe that Rand moderated his use of the CK. After all, he is taking out one of the top Forsaken, and before this, he spreads the knowledge of Balefire to his Asha'man (Narishma), suggesting that while he knows it is dangerous, he doesn't really realise why or how much it is.

Now, Brandon has commented on how far back in time balefire can take things - we know that at most, it couldn't have taken Graendal back more than a week or so (Brandon said a day or two IIRC), but we know that the balefire was strong enough to remove the Compulsion placed on Ramshalan (probably 20-60 minutes earlier). Note that this minimum is roughly equal to or greater than the amount of time that Rand restored in TFoH with Rahvin.

With Rahvin, Rand used at most 1 metre squared of balefire (likely less, but we'll be generous). We also know that Natrin's Barrow is a large estate, so assuming that Rand's target area was 1km squared is not unreasonable.

1km squared = 1 million metres. This strongly suggests that he is definitely drawing deeply on the Choedan Kal.

----

Regarding the destruction of cities in the War of Power, I'd explain it in two parts:

1 - Cities in our world are growing more and more densely populated - AoL cities would have been similar. One square km could hold millions of people in an AoL skyscraper. So there is less area to cover.

2 - We never hear how far back the population was taken. For all we know, the balefire streams were broad but far weaker than Rand's, only taking them back seconds or perhaps even less.
Reply to message
Rand the psycho? - 06/01/2010 02:53:30 AM 1520 Views
I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:07:33 AM 926 Views
On Balefire - 06/01/2010 04:43:18 AM 922 Views
Good point - 06/01/2010 05:04:26 AM 949 Views
On the nature of BaleFire - 06/01/2010 03:32:25 PM 849 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:59:12 AM 764 Views
Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:10:33 AM 889 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:20:02 AM 789 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:58:00 AM 763 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 11:46:13 AM 699 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 03:55:01 PM 730 Views
I disagree - 06/01/2010 05:42:44 PM 701 Views
Re: I disagree - 06/01/2010 06:41:08 PM 703 Views
Re: I disagree - 07/01/2010 04:42:40 AM 682 Views
I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 07:30:56 AM 839 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 03:32:24 PM 754 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 09:52:47 PM 797 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 11:19:56 PM 681 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:21:50 AM 765 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:56:26 AM 712 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 01:46:16 AM 699 Views
I agree with Templar - 09/01/2010 04:36:20 PM 707 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 07:57:54 AM 800 Views
Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 02:36:42 PM 832 Views
Re: Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 04:16:12 PM 744 Views
But... - 06/01/2010 04:34:02 PM 850 Views
Re: But... - 06/01/2010 06:14:25 PM 670 Views
Doesn't Balefire remove your thread from the Pattern permanently? - 06/01/2010 02:55:38 PM 703 Views
No, RJ stated balefired people can be reborn. *NM* - 06/01/2010 03:26:00 PM 383 Views
But not in this turning of the Wheel. So they'd miss out on MANY lifetimes. - 06/01/2010 05:46:04 PM 733 Views
What? - 06/01/2010 06:20:56 PM 733 Views
Where did you get that? - 06/01/2010 07:09:38 PM 703 Views
No, balefire just kills you backwards in time. It is not super-death. *NM* - 06/01/2010 09:58:18 PM 417 Views
LOL ... super-death! - 06/01/2010 11:59:31 PM 686 Views
Hah! *NM* - 07/01/2010 12:06:07 AM 337 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:20 AM 683 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:33 AM 664 Views
Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 06:51:15 PM 827 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 07:16:14 PM 721 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 08:58:40 PM 729 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 10:47:11 PM 744 Views
let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:26:43 PM 738 Views
Re: let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:40:56 PM 731 Views
actually that quote supports my thoughts - 06/01/2010 11:50:40 PM 759 Views
Re: actually that quote supports my thoughts - 07/01/2010 12:10:07 AM 702 Views
Meh. I just think advocating mass-murder is the opposite direction RJ meant for this to take. - 07/01/2010 12:00:44 AM 771 Views
Sigh. What mass murder? - 07/01/2010 12:15:01 AM 648 Views
you are kidding right? - 07/01/2010 12:19:58 AM 737 Views
In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:14:32 PM 725 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:57:43 PM 739 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:13:21 PM 751 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:52:24 PM 696 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 08:56:43 PM 753 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:26:01 PM 697 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:30:45 PM 637 Views
Personally I'm kind of sick of Rand being the only person killing FS! - 07/01/2010 09:42:57 PM 817 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:56:02 PM 740 Views
OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 07/01/2010 10:30:19 PM 710 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 01:53:25 PM 675 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 02:56:41 PM 735 Views
What might work... - 08/01/2010 12:35:17 PM 674 Views
Re: What might work... - 08/01/2010 11:38:09 PM 671 Views
Yes. Anakin Skywalker all over again - 06/01/2010 11:01:02 PM 827 Views
Meh - 06/01/2010 11:30:24 PM 668 Views
The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:33:32 PM 676 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:50:37 PM 753 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:55:03 PM 688 Views
I do have to guiltily say, though, that if Rand had balefired the Seanchan and THEN became good... - 07/01/2010 12:03:20 AM 731 Views
*laughs behind hand* - 07/01/2010 12:05:54 AM 801 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 07/01/2010 12:23:11 AM 667 Views
I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 12:52:25 AM 670 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 01:24:32 AM 742 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 03:33:52 PM 678 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 04:28:18 PM 824 Views
right cause all Generals are so well versed in medical conditions - 07/01/2010 09:44:09 PM 783 Views
Nice way to avoid the argument. - 07/01/2010 10:00:17 PM 735 Views
I'm just done talking in circles. You seem to think that because people - 07/01/2010 11:53:05 PM 767 Views
I concede - 07/01/2010 01:09:11 AM 662 Views
You weren't wrong overall, but there were some serious flaws in your reasoning. - 07/01/2010 02:43:17 AM 765 Views
Tee hee. - 07/01/2010 05:28:52 AM 716 Views
Morals are subjective anyhow, - 07/01/2010 06:23:09 AM 752 Views
Re: Morals are subjective anyhow, - 07/01/2010 03:23:59 PM 673 Views
I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 12:00:02 AM 750 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 05:56:16 PM 913 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 18/01/2010 01:00:23 PM 1010 Views
Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 11/01/2010 04:47:10 PM 644 Views
Re: Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 18/01/2010 12:49:26 PM 693 Views

Reply to Message