15228 replies to this topic

[corey_russell]

@Alesia, @Grond0 - I'll keep your tips about MMM's and spell turning in mind - it was just Ruzzel was getting chewed up by his own reflected MMM's so didn't want him to die the same way Grond0 and Gate70 have (their own weapons killing them by enemies who reflect their range attacks to themselves). I don't think we know protection from fire yet and am saving fire scrolls for different encounter.

[Serg BlackStrider]

Commiserations to the fallen...

 

Meanwhile House Jae'llat is destroyed. Burnt to crisps naturally. The ashes scattered in the wind... This was done partly to avenge Cassia's disintegration in Sphere of Chaos back then and partly as a revanche for Avatar's failure with them. We gave them no single tiny bit of chance now. The buffing took nearly as long as the coming fight if no longer. Upon entering the Fire Storm, Incendiary Cloud, Death Fog, Insect Plague, Horn of Silence blast, Skull Trap/Slow/Emotion Sequencer, Chaos, Cloudkill, Remove Magic were unloaded and then we just murdered them. Ist'tar Jae'llat hit Jaheira (and, after she retreated, Mazzy) like a truck (we found the Soul Reaver +4 on his corpse later). Valas Jae'llat had plenty of renewable buffs via Triggers and a such so last the longest and even hit Mazzy with Flame Arrow x3 sequencer right a moment before she split his skull with her trusty axe. In addition to Soul Reaver we got Helmet of Opposite Alignment, Helmet of Defense and Staff of Earth +2. Not that great (and not what we had expected) but at least we got satisfaction. 

 

Spoiler

    

 

Nothing left to bother with in this cursed city so we are ready to gain Adalon's eggs and leave.

 

to be continued...

[Blackraven]

Well done Serg, Impish Face and company surely settled that old score!
(Not an easy fight if one doesn't come prepared.)

[Alesia_BH]

Ariel, Halfling F/T: BG2 Update 5- The de'Arnise Keep

 

 

Ariel has cleared the de'Arnise Keep up to but not including Torgal. She is now deciding whether to resupply and take on Torgal or save him for later.

 

I'll forgo coverage of the epic battle with Rex, Rover, Sparky and Spot this time. But trust me: it was awesome.

 

Mr. Reading Rainbow fell to Dart of Stunning->Belm + Talon. RoAC II provided single target defense early in the fight, but it was quickly dispelled. A Confusion cast was foiled with Harmony. A Flame Arrow was caught by the Reflex.

 

Spoiler

 

Glaicus saw Ariel's roguish side. An opening backstab with a staff of strking brought him down to injured. Poison from Ariel's three traps finished him.

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

Some but not all of the golems were killed, since the iron golem seemed like more trouble than he was worth. Arvoreen was kept in the off-hand to protect against slow.

 

Spoiler

 

The gaggle of trolls in the main hall threatened to over run Ariel, but pairing her full plate with the Girdle of Piercing and seeking a defensible position in a doorway permitted her to triumph.

 

 

Spoiler

 

Ariel is fairly confident that she could defeat Torgal with additional potions and separation tactics, but fighting Torgal's full crew would be too much for her right now. She will probably save him for later, although she's tempted to finish the quest. Nalia has been waiting for ages, after all.

 

 

Best,

 

A.

[Alesia_BH]

Nice work, Serg! I'm glad to see Cassia avenged!

 

Best,

 

A.

[Alesia_BH]

Ariel, Halfling F/T: BG2 Update 6- Windspear Hills

 

 

Ariel has rescued Taar Windspear and claimed Dragonslayer. There is still work to be done in the Windspear Hills, however: Firkraag yet lives. Like Torgal, Firkraag will face a more fearsome version of Ariel at a later date.

 

Ruhk Transmuter was killed with a staff of striking backstab and a simultaneous Potion of Firebreath. Ariel considered withholding her Potion of Firebreath and waiting for the kamikaze kobolds to finish Ruhk, but she feared that he might erect Protection from Fire too quickly.

 

After nixing the orc archers with the Reflex in hand, Ariel evaded the golems and then approached the undead alcove. There was no shortage of ugly there, but it didn't seem like anything Protection from Undead and Azuredge couldn't handle.

 

Spoiler

 

This proved to be only partially correct. While chasing down the elder vampires, the ancient vampires vanished. Ariel wasn't sure whether they had applied a form of invisibility which could be dispelled with Detect Illusions or had hidden in shadows.

 

Hoping to throroughly test whether Detect Illusions would work, Ariel lingered too long. Her Protection from Undead expired, and she found herself facing three ancient vampires while lacking negative plane protection. Ariel was understandably displeased with that state of affairs and chose to make for the exit. But as it turned out, the exit was blocked by golems. Though level drained, Ariel managed to fight her way through- despite lacking Potions of Absorption.

 

Spoiler

 

A subsequent trip to Watcher's Keep restored the levels lost to the vamps. Ariel then returned to the Windspear Hills to finish her quest.

 

Tazok held his own in toe-to-toe melee with Ariel, but Ariel's staff of striking backstabs were too much for him to handle.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Conster, confident as always, was eager to display his skills, but it didn't take him long to realize he had stepped into a trap.

 

Spoiler

 

There was little to celebrate for Kaol and the Gang. Ariel didn't waste time: she got down on it.

 

And Samia found it was too hot, with Ariel constantly running for shade.

 

Akae and Ferric Ironbalde said let's go dancing, but they soon discovered it was ladies night and the feeling wasn't right.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Chak and Legdoril eventually found the same. For Ariel, it was a victory to be cherished- even if it included a lesson early on. Remember to watch out for Physical Mirror rogues (that goes double for high level bounty hunters!): your non-HLA traps will be reflected.

 

Spoiler

 

Ariel is currently resting at the Five Flagons Inn. In her next session, she will take on Mae'Var.

 

Best,

 

A.

[Alesia_BH]

Ok everyone. There is an issue I'd like to discuss.

 

As some of you are aware, players at Baldursgate.com have been trying to get a consolidated no reload challenge thread going for some time now. It appears that they've finally succeeded. Early in that thread, I provided support and encouragement. Later, I posted a proposal. The text of that proposal appears below in italics.

 

Suppose we were to combine the challenge here with the Bioware challenge- sort of like different conferences in the same sport. We could have a standard flexible rule set across the conferences/forums and maintain a shared Hall of Heroes. Players could play and post in either forum or, if they choose, both. I can even imagine a day when we could run yearly cross forum challenges: team Bioware.com v. team Baldursgate.com. We could all setup the same installs and each team could have, say five players: the team that ends up with the most successes wins. Assuming everyone could maintain a light-hearted and supportive attitude even within a quasi-competitive environment, that could be a lot of fun.

I'm ambivalent about the yearly cross forum challenge idea, but the idea of unifying our threads and fostering cross-communication between the communities makes sense to me.

Apologies if I'm cluttering up your thread, but I thought the idea was worth floating. If there is interest, let me know. We can discuss it here or, if you prefer, in a separate thread.

Anyhoo: Best of luck once again!

 

The response to this idea was wholly positive. The question now is whether we at Bioware would like to go ahead with this- whether we would like to share out Hall of Heroes and our rule set in the interest of expanding the challenge and unifying the two no reload communitites.

 

Like all substantive issues here, I feel this should be decided by consensus: we should only proceed if everyone agrees. Personally, I see only upside to this, but that's just me. Let me know what you think.

 

Best,

 

A.

[Grond0]

Sounds reasonable to me - as I'm fond of saying to Gate70 what could possibly go wrong (on the other hand ... ).  Seriously, I don't think there's anything to lose by trying.  In the unlikely event that we did get problems (such as encountering a rather less supportive attitude than we would like) we could presumably just break the link.

[Alesia_BH]

Sounds reasonable to me - as I'm fond of saying to Gate70 what could possibly go wrong (on the other hand ... ).  Seriously, I don't think there's anything to lose by trying.  In the unlikely event that we did get problems (such as encountering a rather less supportive attitude than we would like) we could presumably just break the link.

 

I don't think there's anything to lose either, and their no reload community looks promising. Their thread was inspired by ours and I definitely see elements of our community culture replicated within theirs. They're kind, they're supportive, and they're respectful. On top of that, they have some solid content coming in on a regular basis.

 

Here's a link to the Baldursgate.com thread. I'd encourage anyone who would like to weigh in on this to take a look. It will help us all make an informed decision.

http://forum.baldurs...at-spellhold/p1

 

After initially proposing the idea of unification there, I decided to hold off on presenting it here in the interest of seeing whether their thread would stick. I also wanted to see how their community culture would evolve. So far I'm impreseed. They're doing it right.

 

What does everyone else think?

 

Best,

 

A.

[Serg BlackStrider]

Sounds reasonable to me - as I'm fond of saying to Gate70 what could possibly go wrong (on the other hand ... ).  Seriously, I don't think there's anything to lose by trying.  In the unlikely event that we did get problems (such as encountering a rather less supportive attitude than we would like) we could presumably just break the link.

I agree - we'll lose nothing. I'm yet to go through the posts over those forums but so far I don't see the reasons to not at least try.

[Epsil0]

The only problem I see is that we'll be forcing Blackraven to choose one side or another, since he posts regularly on both of the no-reload challenges. 

 

In all seriousness, go for it! I don't think they have any trilogy no-reloads on their side yet, do they?

[Blind_Visionary]

The only problem I see is that we'll be forcing Blackraven to choose one side or another, since he posts regularly on both of the no-reload challenges. 

 

In all seriousness, go for it! I don't think they have any trilogy no-reloads on their side yet, do they?

 

 

The only problem I see is that I'll never have time to play if there are more posts to read!  =)

[Alesia_BH]

The only problem I see is that we'll be forcing Blackraven to choose one side or another, since he posts regularly on both of the no-reload challenges. 

 

He won't have to choose. We'll just say that we drafted him.

 

Best,

 

A.

[Alesia_BH]

We need to hear from Corey.

 

Best,

 

A.

[Alesia_BH]

Quick Note on Ariel's Game:

 

I have a confession to make. I'm totally bored with Ariel. At this point, I need something more challenging than a Halfling F/T.

 

If Seguro reaches ToB territory then Ariel will have a reason for existence again (the original point of running a F/T was to compare one to a swashbuckler in ToB), but for now she's on hold. I may start a new character in BG1.

 

Best,

 

A.

[corey_russell]

We need to hear from Corey.

 

Best,

 

A.

I have no opinion on the matter. I don't know what this means to me or to others, or how this would work. I intend to post on the BioWare forums, regardless of what the community decides. The community can do as it will. If we were Congress, I guess I would be an "abstain" vote.

[Alesia_BH]

I have no opinion on the matter. I don't know what this means to me or to others, or how this would work.

 

Understood. Here's how this will work procedurally.

 

If we reach an affirmative consensus here, I'll go back to Baldursgate.com and let them know. If they would still like to go ahead with unification then: 1) they would be free to borrow our rule set; 2) we would maintain a shared Hall of Heroes. Mechanically, this means they would copy and repost content from our Page 1.

 

When a Trilogy run is successfully completed here, we would inform them and provide the relevant info. They would then update their copy of the Hall of Heroes. If and when they complete a Trilogy run, they would do likewise. Cross links and cross posting would be encouraged.

 

While the rule set would be shared, each forum would adjuducate rule issues independently. Our internal decision process would remain unchanged, as would theirs. Each forum would maintain decision making autonomy.

 

 I intend to post on the BioWare forums, regardless of what the community decides.

 

That's my intention as well. There would be no obligation to post on the other forum.

 

Cross posting, as Blackraven does, would be encouraged but not required.

 

Personally, I intend to keep posting here as always. On occasion, I'd drop by their forum and share an update which they might find particularly interesting. Periodically, I might provide them with a summary of recent events here. I suspect that someone from there might volunteer to do the same to make us aware of their active runs. But again, there would be no obligation.

 

To a large extent, this would all be symbolic. But symbols have meaning and power. Amongst other things, they can promote unity and dialogue. That would be the objective.

 

Does that help clarify?

 

Best,

 

A.

[corey_russell]

Understood. Here's how this will work procedurally.

 

If we reach an affirmative consensus here, I'll go back to Baldursgate.com and let them know. If they would still like to go ahead with unification then: 1) they would be free to borrow our rule set; 2) we would maintain a shared Hall of Heroes. Mechanically, this means they would copy and repost content from our Page 1.

 

When a Trilogy run is successfully completed here, we would inform them and provide the relevant info. They would then update their copy of the Hall of Heroes. If and when they complete a Trilogy run, they would do likewise. Cross links and cross posting would be encouraged.

 

While the rule set would be shared, each forum would adjuducate rule issues independently. Our internal decision process would remain unchanged, as would theirs. Each forum would maintain decision making autonomy.

 

 

That's my intention as well. There would be no obligation to post on the other forum.

 

Cross posting, as Blackraven does, would be encouraged but not required.

 

Personally, I intend to keep posting here as always. On occasion, I'd drop by their forum and share an update which they might find particularly interesting. Periodically, I might provide them with a summary of recent events here. I suspect that someone from there might volunteer to do the same to make us aware of their active runs. But again, there would be no obligation.

 

To a large extent, this would all be symbolic. But symbols have meaning and power. Amongst other things, they can promote unity and dialogue. That would be the objective.

 

Does that help clarify?

 

Best,

 

A.

Yes Alesia that does clarify. Now that it's spelled out, no wonder you wanted my input, seeing that currently I maintain the hall of heroes. If they complete a no-reload in their thread, I see no problem in them supplying me the info (perhaps a post in this thread) and then me updating the hall of heroes to include successes from their forum. Does that mean the forum a success occurs needs to be mentioned in the record, or is that not relevant?

[Alesia_BH]

Yes Alesia that does clarify. Now that it's spelled out, no wonder you wanted my input, seeing that currently I maintain the hall of heroes.

 

That, and you're a member of our community. As I see it, we should only proceed if everyone agrees. Every voice counts.

 

 I see no problem in them supplying me the info (perhaps a post in this thread) and then me updating the hall of heroes to include successes from their forum

 

That's how it would work. Someone from their forum would stop by and say something like "Hey everyone! I have good news to report: XYX just completed a Trilogy run! Here's the info for the Hall of Heroes. Check out the links!" We'd offer our congratulations, and then we'd update.

 

 

 Does that mean the forum a success occurs needs to be mentioned in the record, or is that not relevant?

 

When they submit their info, they'll include links, like we do. So, the forum of origin will be signalled within the link.

 

Nonetheless, it might be helpful to explicitly state the forum of origin going forward. We could enter it just after the difficulty or, where applicable, the notable mods line. So, future entries would read:

 

Character:

Race:

Class:

Difficulty:

Notable mods:

Forum:

Entered by XYZ

 

Start BG 1: Link 1

Finish BG 1: Link 2

Begin BG 2: Link 3

Melissan: Link 4

 

They'd be apprised of the format and would submit everything to you just as you'd need to post it. You'd just have to copy and paste.

 

When we have a success, we'd do them the same courtesy.

 

Best,

 

A.

[Grond0]

Seguro {2} - halfling swashbuckler (update 1)

 

Seguro has made it out of the dungeon with no particular fuss.  She used stealth, horror and traps to ensure that all dangerous opponents were neutralised before they had any opportunity to harm her.  Probably the hardest encounter to do that with is the mephit portals.  There Seguro panicked the first three mephits with her two horrors - enabling her to destroy one portal without the radiant mephit noticing.  After resting she tried again and horrified the remaining 3 mephits.

Spoiler

 

The only thing not completed was Ulvaryl.  In this installation the battlemage is coded as hostile immediately rather than only after Ulvaryl disappears - and he committed suicide on some pre-laid traps rather than attacking Ulvaryl.

 

 

My intention is to put Seguro on hold for tomorrow while I have another go at trying to complete the trilogy in a day ...

[Blackraven]

While the rule set would be shared, each forum would adjuducate rule issues independently. Our internal decision process would remain unchanged, as would theirs. Each forum would maintain decision making autonomy.

Alesia you know I'm a proponent of your nor-reload harmonisation proposal because it could make no-reload a bigger thing with more active and passive participation. An elaboration of the rules might be desirable though. In my experience the no-reload criterion is interpreted stricter here than at the BG forums. Example: when I found my Fighter/Thief Glorydd dead after I had failed to pause the game while leaving my computer for a moment, I posted that Glorydd's run had ended. Several people at the BG forums said they considered a reload acceptable, while here people just offered me their condolences.

[corey_russell]

Alesia you know I'm a proponent of your nor-reload harmonisation proposal because it could make no-reload a bigger thing with more active and passive participation. An elaboration of the rules might be desirable though. In my experience the no-reload criterion is interpreted stricter here than at the BG forums. Example: when I found my Fighter/Thief Glorydd dead after I had failed to pause the game while leaving my computer for a moment, I posted that Glorydd's run had ended. Several people at the BG forums said they considered a reload acceptable, while here people just offered me their condolences.

An interesting Case example, Blackraven. Did they explain their rationale? It did not appear to be a bug, you just got an unfavorable result (of not being paused). If people could reload because of that, then we would have to allow reloads say, when Melicamp fails to be saved - after all its an unfavorable result! The idea of the challenge (I believe) is to adapt when things don't go your way (character chunked, Melicamp failed to be saved, failed pick-pocketing, etc.) Grated in your case tough to adapt when you are dead, but you can adapt for the next run (e.g., be careful about actually being paused before walking away from the computer).

[Blackraven]

An interesting Case example, Blackraven. Did they explain their rationale? It did not appear to be a bug, you just got an unfavorable result (of not being paused).

Well people gave different (or no) reasons for reloading. Rather than trying to paraphrase them, I'll give you the quotes. 
Fwiw, all these people except numbers 3 and 5 have posted no-reload runs on the BG Forums.

1: "I say it's like a situation your computer has shut down or the power has been switched off. It would be not a reload at all. And nothing would be tarnished:) But I guess you don't agree with it."

2: "I'd reload. That's just me though."
3: "Yeah, it happened to me once as well. Since then, I'm always going to the options screen if I need to step away from my PC. For the record: I didn't reload. It was really painful, but I think it was the right choice, in retrospect."

4: "For me, a no-reload run is a test of competence in battle, rather than simply a game beaten without reloading. So long as you can win each fight without fail, I consider it a success. Factors beyond your control, like an interruption, shouldn't impact the outcome. But if you feel Glorydd's future progress would be tainted by a reload, then I suppose a new run would feel better."

5: I agree with those who think that such “technical difficulties” should not cause an end to your adventure. However, you must of course, follow your own conscious. Poor Glorydd, through no fault of her own she falls. The gods do seem to have an unfortunate sense of humor.
6: "If I was you, I would keep playing because as you said, you had the upper hand against Fake Glorydd. If you were losing, I could understand that it would feel like cheating, because you could reload a bad situation. But in this case, it's quite the opposite ! Everything was going fine, and now you need to do it again, which means you can potentially lose a fight you were winning previously. I think it's a fair trade off."

7: "Such a shame to die on a bug/RL event. I'd probably reload but i really understand that feeling taht makes you want to start again."
 

If people could reload because of that, then we would have to allow reloads say, when Melicamp fails to be saved - after all its an unfavorable result! The idea of the challenge (I believe) is to adapt when things don't go your way (character chunked, Melicamp failed to be saved, failed pick-pocketing, etc.) Grated in your case tough to adapt when you are dead, but you can adapt for the next run (e.g., be careful about actually being paused before walking away from the computer).

 

I doubt people would go that far. It would turn no-reload into no-death runs. Still, the above illustrates that there are different interpretations of the no-reload concept.

[Alesia_BH]

Alesia you know I'm a proponent of your nor-reload harmonisation proposal because it could make no-reload a bigger thing with more active and passive participation. An elaboration of the rules might be desirable though. In my experience the no-reload criterion is interpreted stricter here than at the BG forums.

 

Yes. There are some emerging differences between the communities with respect to rules and norms. Clarification might be helpful- especially on this point.

 

I'll take a moment to clarify the no reload rule here as I understand it. Since you have a background in law, I'll take a quasi-legal approach. I'll begin by expaining the procedural structure. I'll then move onto an illustrative case, specfiying the facts, the issue, the holding, and the dicta. 

 

We've basically taken a case law approach to the bug reload rule. The community reaches a consensus informed by our prior decisions and then the player makes the final decision. There haven't been any cases were the community consesus and the player's decision have been in conflict.

 

The decision which most thoroughly fleshed out the contours of the bug reload doctrine was Cassia's disintegration due to a Sphere of Chaos, despite having 100% magic resistance. Upon investigation, we discovered that the .Spl file had the Disintegration effect flagged as Bypass Magical resistance. The issue was whether this could be considered a bug which would justify a reload. The community held that it was not as it fell outside the scope of the bug reload rule. Reloads are justified when there is a transient anomaly that unintentionally breaks establshed functionality within the game world or, in the alternative, a gamebreaking design flaw that unambiguously perverts developer intent.  Cassia's case differed in that we had long standing functionality that some of us didn't know about and that we speculated may have been unintentional. The full decision appears below:

 

The No Reload Challenge has always made an exception for bugs: Bugs can justify reloads at the player's discretion. That said, the term bug in this context has typically been construed to mean a transient anomaly that unintentionaly breaks establshed functionality within the game world or, in the alternative a gamebreaking design flaw, that unambiguously perverts developer intent.

An example of the former would be the Tobex magic damage resistance bug that I and Saint of Sinners encountered. In that case, a programming error in an engine hack mod unintentionally broke the established functionality of magic damage resistance in our installs. An example of the latter might the death script issue that occasionally makes principles like Abazigal unkillable. 

In Cassia's case we have something different. We have long standing functionality that some of us didn't know about and that we speculate may have been unintentional. Cassia's death strikes me as a lesson learned rather than a justification for a reload. I'd continue my run, and submit a report on the G3 forums so the issue could be investigated for future editions of the fixpack. If the functionality really bothered me, I'd consider a mod for future runs that would be explicitly mentioned in my mod list. 

 

Note that the phrase "transient anomaly" has never been interpreted to refer to player errors, misclicks, real world distractions, hardware lags, or any phenomena outside of the game world. It refers to documentable erroneous and aberrant game mechanics.

 

Were we to unify the threads, I'd encourage Baldursgate.com to use this rule and the associated case law as a starting point. That said, over time Baldursgate.com would develop its own case law and the community there might choose to narrow or extend the bug reload doctrine as they see fit. I take it as a given that some differences in rules and norms will exist at outset and that others will emerge over time. The issue worth considering is how that will be handled.

 

From the starting point of a shared rule set and associated case law, each forum would adjudicate rule issues independently. Each forum would maintain decision making autonomy. Rulings after unification in Baldursgate.com would be persuasive not binding authority with respect to issues adjudicated here, and vice versa. We'd have a shared rule set and associated starting case law, but that body of jurisprudence could be interpreted and reinterpreted differentially over time to accomodate the respective communites' needs (*).

Does that make sense?

 

Best,

 

A.

 

(*) As an example, you can think of American and English property law. They both started with the same case law, but they diverged marignally over time. After American independence, subsequent decisions in the respective jurisdications served as potentially persuasive but not binding authority with respect to each other.

[corey_russell]

Well people gave different (or no) reasons for reloading. Rather than trying to paraphrase them, I'll give you the quotes. 
Fwiw, all these people except numbers 3 and 5 have posted no-reload runs on the BG Forums.

1: "I say it's like a situation your computer has shut down or the power has been switched off. It would be not a reload at all. And nothing would be tarnished:) But I guess you don't agree with it."

2: "I'd reload. That's just me though."
3: "Yeah, it happened to me once as well. Since then, I'm always going to the options screen if I need to step away from my PC. For the record: I didn't reload. It was really painful, but I think it was the right choice, in retrospect."

4: "For me, a no-reload run is a test of competence in battle, rather than simply a game beaten without reloading. So long as you can win each fight without fail, I consider it a success. Factors beyond your control, like an interruption, shouldn't impact the outcome. But if you feel Glorydd's future progress would be tainted by a reload, then I suppose a new run would feel better."

5: I agree with those who think that such “technical difficulties” should not cause an end to your adventure. However, you must of course, follow your own conscious. Poor Glorydd, through no fault of her own she falls. The gods do seem to have an unfortunate sense of humor.
6: "If I was you, I would keep playing because as you said, you had the upper hand against Fake Glorydd. If you were losing, I could understand that it would feel like cheating, because you could reload a bad situation. But in this case, it's quite the opposite ! Everything was going fine, and now you need to do it again, which means you can potentially lose a fight you were winning previously. I think it's a fair trade off."

7: "Such a shame to die on a bug/RL event. I'd probably reload but i really understand that feeling taht makes you want to start again."
 

 

I doubt people would go that far. It would turn no-reload into no-death runs. Still, the above illustrates that there are different interpretations of the no-reload concept.

Thanks for detailing their reasons, Blackraven. And as for Melicamp - more than once,  people have asked to reload if they fail to save Melicamp.