Active Users:742 Time:03/04/2025 05:21:21 AM
Re: I disagree Lord Haart Send a noteboard - 07/01/2010 04:42:40 AM
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.


Actually, we DO know that Graendal was burned back at LEAST 15 minutes or so. There had to be enough time for Ramshalan to get Compulsed, return to Rand, be delved for Compulsion, and then for Rand to act. Given that they were a fair way from Natrin's Barrow, and that Ramshalan would take time to find his way out, I'd say an estimate of 30 minutes is reasonable. And this is the MINIMUM balefire strength - Rand could have used more for all we know, but any less and the Compulsion would not have been removed.

Based on this, we know the strength of the balefire was similar to that used on Rahvin (ie, Rand's total strength). Couple that with the area affected:

1km squared = 1 million metres squared.


and we see that

This strongly suggests that he is definitely drawing deeply on the Choedan Kal.


Because we have to assume that the Balefire was equally strong at all points (Rand didn't know where in Natrin's Barrow Graendal was, and he had to hit her hard enough that he would get the confirmation of her death from the removal of Ramshalan's Compulsion).

1 million times Rand's own strength is certainly a massive boost, no matter how you look at it. Even if we assume that Natrin's Barrow is only 250m squared, that's still 62,500 times Rand's unaided strength.

So in answer to your argument, we do definitively know that the balefire was of substantial strength, and therefore covering a large area of it was a dangerous act.
Reply to message
Rand the psycho? - 06/01/2010 02:53:30 AM 1582 Views
I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:07:33 AM 983 Views
On Balefire - 06/01/2010 04:43:18 AM 978 Views
Good point - 06/01/2010 05:04:26 AM 1006 Views
On the nature of BaleFire - 06/01/2010 03:32:25 PM 909 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 04:59:12 AM 821 Views
Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:10:33 AM 939 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:20:02 AM 853 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 05:58:00 AM 820 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 11:46:13 AM 774 Views
Re: Wait! - 06/01/2010 03:55:01 PM 763 Views
I disagree - 06/01/2010 05:42:44 PM 730 Views
Re: I disagree - 06/01/2010 06:41:08 PM 757 Views
Re: I disagree - 07/01/2010 04:42:40 AM 740 Views
I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 07:30:56 AM 897 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 03:32:24 PM 805 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 09:52:47 PM 864 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 06/01/2010 11:19:56 PM 745 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:21:50 AM 841 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 12:56:26 AM 778 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire. - 07/01/2010 01:46:16 AM 771 Views
I agree with Templar - 09/01/2010 04:36:20 PM 764 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions. - 06/01/2010 07:57:54 AM 874 Views
Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 02:36:42 PM 888 Views
Re: Rand crossed a line - 06/01/2010 04:16:12 PM 802 Views
But... - 06/01/2010 04:34:02 PM 915 Views
Re: But... - 06/01/2010 06:14:25 PM 725 Views
Doesn't Balefire remove your thread from the Pattern permanently? - 06/01/2010 02:55:38 PM 764 Views
No, RJ stated balefired people can be reborn. *NM* - 06/01/2010 03:26:00 PM 405 Views
But not in this turning of the Wheel. So they'd miss out on MANY lifetimes. - 06/01/2010 05:46:04 PM 792 Views
What? - 06/01/2010 06:20:56 PM 794 Views
Where did you get that? - 06/01/2010 07:09:38 PM 761 Views
No, balefire just kills you backwards in time. It is not super-death. *NM* - 06/01/2010 09:58:18 PM 442 Views
LOL ... super-death! - 06/01/2010 11:59:31 PM 739 Views
Hah! *NM* - 07/01/2010 12:06:07 AM 375 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:20 AM 750 Views
It makes me think of History of the World Part 1 - 07/01/2010 12:53:33 AM 725 Views
Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 06:51:15 PM 858 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 07:16:14 PM 776 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 08:58:40 PM 812 Views
Re: Yes it was. - 06/01/2010 10:47:11 PM 810 Views
let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:26:43 PM 794 Views
Re: let me ask the question in a different way - 06/01/2010 11:40:56 PM 792 Views
actually that quote supports my thoughts - 06/01/2010 11:50:40 PM 815 Views
Re: actually that quote supports my thoughts - 07/01/2010 12:10:07 AM 771 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 822 Views
Sigh. What mass murder? - 07/01/2010 12:15:01 AM 711 Views
you are kidding right? - 07/01/2010 12:19:58 AM 803 Views
In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:14:32 PM 782 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 03:57:43 PM 793 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:13:21 PM 808 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 07:52:24 PM 748 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 08:56:43 PM 821 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:26:01 PM 754 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:30:45 PM 694 Views
Personally I'm kind of sick of Rand being the only person killing FS! - 07/01/2010 09:42:57 PM 872 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully. - 07/01/2010 09:56:02 PM 806 Views
OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 07/01/2010 10:30:19 PM 781 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 01:53:25 PM 742 Views
Re: OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol: - 08/01/2010 02:56:41 PM 797 Views
What might work... - 08/01/2010 12:35:17 PM 705 Views
Re: What might work... - 08/01/2010 11:38:09 PM 730 Views
Yes. Anakin Skywalker all over again - 06/01/2010 11:01:02 PM 882 Views
Meh - 06/01/2010 11:30:24 PM 728 Views
The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:33:32 PM 733 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:50:37 PM 813 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 06/01/2010 11:55:03 PM 754 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 786 Views
*laughs behind hand* - 07/01/2010 12:05:54 AM 866 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them! - 07/01/2010 12:23:11 AM 734 Views
I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 12:52:25 AM 737 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 01:24:32 AM 803 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 03:33:52 PM 740 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing - 07/01/2010 04:28:18 PM 886 Views
right cause all Generals are so well versed in medical conditions - 07/01/2010 09:44:09 PM 839 Views
Nice way to avoid the argument. - 07/01/2010 10:00:17 PM 794 Views
I'm just done talking in circles. You seem to think that because people - 07/01/2010 11:53:05 PM 827 Views
I concede - 07/01/2010 01:09:11 AM 722 Views
You weren't wrong overall, but there were some serious flaws in your reasoning. - 07/01/2010 02:43:17 AM 829 Views
Tee hee. - 07/01/2010 05:28:52 AM 768 Views
Morals are subjective anyhow, - 07/01/2010 06:23:09 AM 815 Views
Re: Morals are subjective anyhow, - 07/01/2010 03:23:59 PM 737 Views
I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 12:00:02 AM 812 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 09/01/2010 05:56:16 PM 972 Views
Re: I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention - 18/01/2010 01:00:23 PM 1081 Views
Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 11/01/2010 04:47:10 PM 705 Views
Re: Your assertions weaken your overall argument. - 18/01/2010 12:49:26 PM 750 Views

Reply to Message