-
Posts
189 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
News
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by yurisses
-
hi
"Ambition is not on a planet, but he/she is not the Shard Brandon has previously referred to as the one not on a planet. So, there are two out there."
Can you tell me more about this exchange?
Because Ambition is dead/splintered. Does it mean that it died not on a planet, or that it may have died on a planet but is not on one any more since it is nowhere?
- Show previous comments 2 more
-
Hmmm. Got that WoB handy?
I was thinking that maybe what happened to Ambition was like a Beta Test.
And I'm still tossing the idea around that Odium is being manipulated by Autonomy. @yurisses regarding the fact that Odium wasn't actually penned on Ambitions shattering.
What if it started kinda like this:
- Autonomy: I wonder.. If I did this what would happen?
- Odium appears: Now that sounds fun. Let's try it on Ambition, he was always a prat.
- Autonomy: No Raise, you are a prat. Ambition is a fool who reaches to high.
- Odium: ** Snorts ** Sooooo..
- Autonomy: I will not have you harm this system. Ambition was always intimidated by you. Scare him away for me will you.
- Odium: ** Chuckles malevolently **
** Sigh ** I wish I could Cadmium bubble 15 years into the future..
*~ HIF ~*
-
@Hoids Imaginary Friend, what WoB are you looking for? The one that says Odium targeted Ambition? That's linked in my previous reply. I believe @Argent was the one who asked about it, and he was at least present, if you want some more specifics on the exchange. But I don't think the dialogue you put forth fits with Odium having Ambition on the top of his hit list.
-
@Pagerunner Thanks heaps; love how friendly and helpful you guys are

Yes that was the WoB I was after. I realized I'd already read it. Thanks again.
The dialogue I put forth was merely some fun against the suggestion: What happened to Ambition was like a Beta Test.
-
ello! Thanks for your Q/A reports! This one is very intriguing to me, do you mind giving me the recording for this one so I can hear Brandon's tone and stuff? (or just the entire recording if you don't want to go to the trouble of isolating that one question)
QuoteNecarion: The compounding trick that the Lord Ruler performed. When you’re storing investiture, are you storing your ‘mistborn-ness’ or all the powers individually?
Brandon: All of the powers individually
Necarion: [Surprised, because this dashed a favorite theory of mine] Oh okay!
Brandon: Yeah, the compounding trick. Really what’s happening is you’re fueling feruchemy with the power of allomancy, but you’re filtering it through you, and then you’re storing it.
Necarion: So it’s not that you’re a more powerful mistborn when you’ve tapped [investiture]
Brandon: No, good question. -
What's your current best FTL theories?
- Show previous comments 3 more
-
Well that's what I get for relying on word-search for "nicro". :/
It seems almost like Brandon misinterpreted the question and thought Necarion was asking about compounding for a bit there (particularly when Brandon says that), but then by the end all the sudden we're talking about how powerful mistborn are again and Brandon doesn't challenge it. I can't say there's much to glean from it given the possibility that Brandon and Necarion were talking past one another.
-
I thought the same thing, which is funny because I've always felt like one of the main WoBs for there being an reverse-compounding trick (http://www.theoryland.com/intvmain.php?i=977#88) could also be a misunderstanding as Brandon just casually seems to reveal you can compound allomancy and adds "don't forget" like we were supposed to know.
Still, what are your best FTL guesses as of this time? I loved your "jump" theory with huge bendalloy bubbles and small cadmium bubbles but that's from 2013.
-
That's a good thought on that WoB just being a super-early reveal of what happened with the Bands of Mourning.
Sorry if it's disappointing, but my 2013 theory is still the one to beat so far as I can see: If it ain't broke don't fix it. The only real flaw is assumption 2.5, which stated (inaccurately) that being in vacuum would increase the size of time bubbles.
