Active Users:791 Time:23/12/2024 04:39:17 PM
Re: I disagree Datakim Send a noteboard - 06/01/2010 06:41:08 PM

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)


This is actually what I am arguing for. That a channeler can choose how wide the balefire stream is, and how strong it is. So Rand could choose a wide but weak stream to burn a large group back only a second. Or a single focused intense stream to burn just a single target back many hours.

But I am also suggesting that these two are not linked. So if he had enough power, he could also create a wide stream that burned everyone back an hour. Or he could create a focused stream that burned you back a second. It would be up to him.

The fact that entire cities were burned in the AoL in one go seems to support this. The AoLers who did not have unlimited power used a wide but weak stream. That still would have destroyed the city effectively, but without burning everyone back for more than just a few seconds maybe?


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.


Uhh?
At this point in the series, Rand has almost completely merged with LTT. And LTT was there when Balefire was invented. It is very likely that rather than not realising the danger, Rand actually knows better than anyone else alive (other than the forsaken) how balefire works, what it does and how much the pattern can take.

Read the scene where Cadsuane tries to order him to stop and he draws upon LTT to smack her down as the ignorant child that she is.

Given that, and given that he knows that the timespan he burned Rahvin back was sufficient since Moridin told him that Rahvin was gone. And given that he has not had his breakdown yet and does not want to destroy the pattern, why would he burn Graendal back any more than he did Rahvin? I see no reason why he would.

I think what we saw was a wide balefire stream that had been attuned so that while it touched everyone, those that it touched were not burned back all that long. No more than Rahvin and probably less. He might even have used as little as what Moiraine used when he took out Bel'al.

Yes, it did damage, but nowhere near enough to seriously endanger the pattern. And I doubt Rand had to draw upon all the power the CK had to offer to do this. I think he could have even used Callandor to accomplish this had he wished. Heck, a circle of 13 might have done the trick.


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.


I agree that he could not have created a stream wide enough to encompass the entire palace unaided. But I am arguing that he did not come close to drawing fully on the CK.

Even just 1% of the max power of CK would probably have been enough to take out the palace. That 1% would still be many many times more than Rands unaided strength though. But 1% is not drawing deeply.

Why would Rand, who did not want to destroy the pattern yet, use 100% of what the CK has to offer if he KNEW from LTT and what happened to Rahvin that 1% would be enough. And actually that 1% would be better/safer. No reason I can think of that he would have.


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.


But if it is possible to create a stream that is broad and wide, but weak at the same time. Why would Rand have create a stream that was wide AND strong. He would know it was not required and would only cause unnecessary damage to the pattern. Damage that he, at this point in the book, did not want to cause yet.
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 923 Views
Good point - 06/01/2010 05:04:26 AM 950 Views
On the nature of BaleFire - 06/01/2010 03:32:25 PM 850 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:59:12 AM 765 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 704 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 801 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 734 Views
What? - 06/01/2010 06:20:56 PM 734 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 684 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 730 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 10:47:11 PM 745 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 732 Views
actually that quote supports my thoughts - 06/01/2010 11:50:40 PM 760 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 738 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 698 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 711 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 01:53:25 PM 676 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 02:56:41 PM 736 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 677 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 679 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 04:28:18 PM 825 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 766 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 751 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 645 Views
Re: Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 18/01/2010 12:49:26 PM 694 Views

Reply to Message