Unfixed problems?

[zhuge]

All new bugs noted and updated to:
http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums...0&pagenumber=1

GOOD NEWS!!!

Steve Moret has promised to do a second official patch during his free time on Christmas break. I have merged both concise and partial lists and posted it at the address above.

From now on all updates will be done at the address above for the convenience of the developers.

Please continue to post bugs, tests, confirmations and refutations.

Thanks.

[Shin]

No, no, he didn't promise anything... anything at all... Just don't be super disapointed if he doesn't make 2nd patch...

[jshandorf]

If you guys have an offline list of bugs you have been keeping track of I suggest you post it there ASAP.

As for promises, he says he will make a ptach, he just donesn't know if Atari will release it, which he doesn't know why they won't but you never know.

[Bob the Elf]

I'm not a big DnD guru nor do I have any handbooks so I have found something that might or might not be a bug. Some armor and shields give a positive armor check penalty that is, an armor check bonus, is that normal? I get that with some light armor/shields like the shields +2 you find that are already identified. Another bug is that if you dont have shield proficiency the description say you take the AC as a penalty, but the game simply apply the armor check penalty, which one is the correct way? Again, you get a bonus if your shield has a positive armor check penalty.

-edit-
Forgot something, if you dismiss a creature you get no exp for it, is that normal? You can still dismiss any kind of creature, outsiders or otherwise.

[RufusAtticus]

News on the rope of entanglement:

I've been busy with research and haven't been able to play with it more. I'll try to do something this weekend.

1) Check out "hold monster" ( suggestions on times per day welcome)

2) Figure out a way to make it appear in the menu as not a wand. Perhaps a python script is needed.

[zhuge]

@Bob the Elf:
Checked a few entries:
{6019}{Chainmail armor} has Col81 (skill check penalty) as -5
{6049}{Chainmail +1} has Col81 as -4
{6094}{Chainmail +2} has Col81 as -4

Uhm... looks Ok to me.

However,
{6225}{Masterwork chainmail armor} has Col81 still as -5 (should be -4 but I'm not sure if this item is in the game anyway so it might not make that much of a difference)

I believe the Co8 v2.0 patch may revert check penalties to pre official patch values which is incorrect. You should only refer to untouched ToEE4.dat files in this matter.

I strongly feel that you should get XP for dismissing creatures. Counts as a win and you should get XP just like if you had destroyed undead with Improved Turning. If you currently don't get XP, I guess it should be noted as a bug and corrected.

Thanks for confirming that it is possible to dismiss any kind of creature. I was shocked when I accidentally Dismissed Paida. This bug is already in the list.



@RufusAtticus:
The 3.5e SRD doesn't seem to make any mention of how many times the Rope it can be used per day. Wonder if this defaults to 1/day? If you are interested in settling the issue, perhaps you could post over at the Wizards boards.
They have a Dungeons and Dragons > Player's Handbook > Spells and Magic Items section:
http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=20

The people there are very much more knowledgable about game intricacies and are pretty helpful.

Haven't found any .py file for the Rope. Writing a new one and getting the engine to recognize it is beyond my abilities. I do feel that if you can manage that, it would be a BIG step forward.
Otherwise Hold Monster sounds fine to me. However since Troika has promised a second patch, perhaps they can come up with a better solution for the Rope as well.



EDIT: The Chime of Opening currently does not function at all.

Quoting 3.5e SRD:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Chime of Opening: A chime of opening is a hollow mithral tube about 1 foot long. When struck, it sends forth magical vibrations that cause locks, lids, doors, valves, and portals to open. The device functions against normal bars, shackles, chains, bolts, and so on. A chime of opening also automatically dispels a hold portal spell or even an arcane lock cast by a wizard of lower than 15th level.
The chime must be pointed at the item or gate to be loosed or opened (which must be visible and known to the user). The chime is then struck, a clear tone rings forth, and in 1 round the target lock is unlocked, the shackle is loosed, the secret door is opened, or the lid of the chest is lifted. Each sounding only opens one form of locking, so if a chest is chained, padlocked, locked, and arcane locked, it takes four uses of a chime of opening to get it open. A silence spell negates the power of the device. A brand-new chime can be used a total of ten times before it cracks and becomes useless.
Moderate transmutation; CL 11th; Craft Wondrous Item, knock; Price 3,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Therefore I plan to implement it as a Knock spell item with 10 charges. Col59 is item charges and Col312 is spell

Proposed changes:
Col50 from OIF_IS_MAGICAL to
OIF_IS_MAGICAL
OIF_EXPIRES_AFTER_USE
OIF_NEEDS_SPELL
Col59 from [blank] to 10
Col168 from [blank] to UseableItem
Col169 from [blank] to 0
Col170 from [blank] to 10
Col312 from [blank] to 'Knock' class_sorcerer 2

Not very sure if I've got the fields right. I'll get to testing it when I'm free. Corrections and comments are welcome.

[Bob the Elf]

I'm not sure why you went quoting the chainmails, I said I knew SHEILDS +2 gave a bonus

But the Co8 patch appears to be the problem as you pointed out, it's not just back to the prepatch numbers, it's completly different. I'm not sure if it's done by the rules since you havent answered my question about positive armor check penalty being normal...

[zhuge]

@Bob the Elf:
Well you did mention armor and shields in your post... I just thought of checking some armors at random.
Anyway, {6051}{Shield +2} has Col81 (skill check penalty) as -2

Well since regular large shields are considered to be at -2 skill check penalty and all magical armors are automatically masterwork for skill check penalty purposes, this value for a Shield +2 should be -1.
I dunno. Maybe Troika overlooked this although they've claimed to have fixed all skill check penalties in the official patch.

rex_blade has already done corrections to this, but if you want to list down all incorrect armor/shield skill check penalties and attempt correction you are most highly welcome to do so. We really need better documentation on what was/will be changed.

Which shield or armor has a positive skill check penalty? AFAIK that wouldn't be right unless it is some sort of special armor with say special enhancements (for example: Silent Moves which gives a bonus for Move Silently checks or Slick which gives a bonus to Escape Artist checks).
There's only 1 reference to Shield +2 and I have already discussed it above. If there are any other light armors/shields in doubt state them specifically and I'll recheck again.

[Bob the Elf]

hrm... Well my protos.tab list 6051 shield +2 as having skill check bonus 1. It's gonna be hard to test if you dont all work with the same data, I downloaded the Co8 patch recently so it should be good.

-edit-
For future patch, something I'd like would be to have the files zipped without an exe as an alternate download. would be handy to people who keep modifying thier files and who dont want to override all their mod just to fix 1 file.

-edit2-
I just downloaded the thing again and I think you should too, because my data is "correct" one. btw I used the zipped one just in case that would make a difference.

[zhuge]

Uhm, there is one. JHunz modified and zipped all the files for v2.0 before Exitium put an installer .exe for them:

http://www.co8.org/files/patch/ToEE_...elease_200.rar

Still works too, I think.

Put modified files and original files in separate directories and put labels on them to ease tracking changes.
Copy paste the ones you want to play test to Temple of Elemental Evil/data.


EDIT: Ok, I examined the protos.tab file from the v2.0 Co8 patch and in that file {6051}{Shield +2} does indeed have a skill check penalty of 1 as you have stated.
I really don't think this is correct. The correct modifier should be -1. The current modifier for the protos.tab in ToEE4.dat (after official patch ONLY) is -2.

v2.0 does not include rex_blade's modifications to skill check penalties. We had hoped to amend this in the next patch update.

If you could browse through the armors and shields and state any other necessary corrections, it would be really nice.

[Bob the Elf]

Ok...

ID Skill check penalty

6051 1
6052 2
6053 3
6054 4
6075 1
6091 1
6095 2
6135 3
6220 1
6221 1
6222 1
6231 1
6232 1

Those are the positive armor check penalty but there are other values that are different from ToEE4 so I'd suggest that anyone modding the armor check penalty work from the ToEE4, but I guess it doesnt really matter if you check them all anyway. I cant really tell you if any other value is right or wrong due to my limited DnD knowledge.

P.S. thanks for the rar file, I always used the files on the news page and that one isnt there.

[zhuge]

Gosh, you're quite right, many errors... pretty embarrassing. Not sure if the original coders wanted it to be so (perhaps they did, but bear in mind that as freelance modders we are not 100% obliged to follow 3.5e strictly, though I would prefer if we did so, if changes are to be incorporated in any official patch versions) but the changes are not really correct.

I'm no DnD expert myself. I just refer to 3.5e SRD when I need to. You can download it for free here: http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=srd35

In the Equipment section of 3.5e, all armor check penalties for regular armor/shields are given:
Padded 0
Leather 0
Studded Leather -1
Chain Shirt -2

Hide -3
Scale mail -4
Chainmail -5
Breastplate -4

Splint mail -7
Banded mail -6
Half plate -7
Full plate -6

Buckler -1
Small Shield -1
Large Shield -2
Tower Shield -10

In the MagicItems II section of 3.5e:
All magic armor is also masterwork armor, reducing armor check penalties by 1.

I hope that makes things clearer. Troika's implementation is actually quite right in ToEE4.dat.
However perhaps due to lack of time, or just lazy incomplete coding, they missed out quite a few items that have been mentioned above.

[Bob the Elf]

There was another question in my "original" post. Anyone know how non proficien shield weilder works? Do you take the AC as a penalty to hit like the description seem to point to or is it simply the armor check penalty that's applied to your to hit?

Nevermind, found it on the link provided by zhuge, it's working correctly.

thanks

[zhuge]

Regarding:
{8015}{Potion of heroism}
{8021}{Potion of super-heroism}

These are reported to be non-functional potions.

{8022}{Potion of eagle's splendor} doesn't seem to function either

In fact, I believe all potions with an (INTERNAL) label are problematic and need review.

Col312 for the above potions are:
'Potion of heroism (INTERNAL)' domain_special 1
'Potion of super-heroism (INTERNAL)' class_bard 5
'Potion of charisma (INTERNAL)' domain_special 1

I propose changing these fields to:
'Heroism' class_bard 2
'Greater Heroism' class_sorceror 6
'Eagles Splendor' class_bard 2

'Greater Heroism' class_sorceror 6 was taken from Col312 of {9665}{Scroll of heroism, greater}
Hope it simulates super-heroism closely.

If Troika is unable or has no time to properly link the following .py files with the potions above:
Spell709 - Potion of heroism.py
Spell710 - Potion of super-heroism.py
Spell705 - Potion of charisma.py

then we may have to resort to substituting almost similar spells for the time being. I wonder if there is any way we could link the .py scripts to the potions (or other items) ourselves. Would solve a number of problems if we could do that.


Note: The change from 'Potion of charisma (INTERNAL)' domain_special 1 to 'Eagles Splendor' class_bard 2 is ALREADY coded in v2.0 Co8 patch. However the other 2 potions are still not fixed.

[RufusAtticus]

My guess is that linking scripts to objects is done using some value in protos.tab or a mes file. Perhaps comparing broken potions to working ones we can discover where the difference lies.

[zhuge]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
My guess is that linking scripts to objects is done using some value in protos.tab or a mes file. Perhaps comparing broken potions to working ones we can discover where the difference lies.

Well it seems that the relevant field in protos.tab is Col312. I can't see any other field which might have a part in calling the correct .py file. Or perhaps the correct .py script IS called but there is something wrong with the script itself which makes the potion non-functional. If someone is willing to tinker with Col312 and see the effects of the potions above or tinker with the scripts attached to these potions, your help would be much appreciated. Come to think of it your bravery as well, since you may provoke a CTD.

On another note, there have been lots of complaints regarding permanent spells too. Even after the official patch which supposedly has fixed them all. I feel sorry for tkurgan running all over the place trying to hex edit saved files to correct them by removing the permanent effect.

I opened up Spell434 - Silence.py
and found
spell.duration = 100 * spell.caster_level

Actually Silence is supposed to have a duration: 1 min./level as per 3.5e SRD.

From past observations, spell.duration seems to use "rounds" as units.
Since 1 minute = 10 rounds, this line of code should instead be:

spell.duration = 10 * spell.caster_level

I wonder if the extended duration has a part to play in spell permanency? I saw one bug report which states duration of Silence as 14400 and this figure did not budge even with prolonged waiting, resting and various measures to dispel the effect.
Anyway, even if it doesn't, I think the above error should still be corrected.


EDIT: One last thing for today, I can't find any reference to a special ability that prevents Rogue sneak attacks. I know elementals and galeb duhrs are still vulnerable to them.

I'm a bit rusty here but if I'm not mistaken anything that prevents critical hits also prevent sneak attacks. However I cannot find a flag or parameter in protos.tab which does this. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough.

If anyone would like to help solve this or re-search protos.tab for such a parameter, it would go a long way to fixing this bug.

[Bob the Elf]

mc_type_undead in the Creature Type, you can also use some other kind of sneak attack immune creature like mc_type_ooze. Those are probably hard coded with their set of parameters.

[Shin]

Undead type is really bad idea, since the monster might be wrongly react to cleric's rebuking power, heal/harm spells for example.

Ooze type in the other hands, sounds tempting, I hope there's no other bonus/malus beside critical/sneak immunity for that type.

edit : err, control plant spell? does it affect ooze?

[Bob the Elf]

Probably not, plant is another type that has sneak immunity.

-edit-
Shopkeepers use that property to see if you have a monster in your team.

[zhuge]

Heh, yeah changing creature type is an idea and a pretty radical one at that. :D
However I foresee some drawbacks such as elementals no longer affected by clerical domains which command or rebuke elementals.
I also foresee Ranger favored enemy Vs elementals no longer working.

But anyway it is certainly an idea worth considering.

I tried to change creature type for a Large Earth Elemental to mc_type_undead and indeed I got the Sneak Attack immunity.
So the concept that it is hardcoded into creature type seems to be correct.

Next I tried changing creature type to mc_type_construct. After all there is only 1 construct in the game: Juggernaut and we wouldn't be messing up anything else.
Unfortunately it seem constructs ARE vulnerable to sneak attacks in ToEE. :\

So I tried changing to mc_type_ooze instead. Didn't seem to work the first time but I found that the file wasn't saved properly. Retried and it seemed to work. No Sneak Attack damage and my Rogue was definitely flanking. But there was no Sneak Attack immunity message though in hypertext.

I suggest keeping it in mind but not implementing it just yet since it is a non-optimal solution. Best would be for Troika to fix all elementals and constructs as immune Vs Sneak Attack.

Btw, galeb duhrs are NOT elementals. They are coded as aberrations which fall in the same category as eye of the deep, will o wisp, vodyanoi, umberhulks and carrion crawlers.

[zhuge]

Originally posted by jshandorf
The masterwork Breastplate doesn't appear to have a graphical image linked to it. In my inventory it has a icon for it but when I put it on my character in the game has an invisible torso. Looks kind of cool, but obviously a bug.

I have checked {6226}{Masterwork breastplate}.
It has an icon in the inventory
It also has a graphical image when you click on 3d model from inventory
It also has an image in the game. Looks whitish/silver in colour when put on a character. Doesn't seem invisible to me.

Tests done by putting armor on a Cleric and a Paladin.

Monks do not register any armor put on them on their 3d model or in the game. Please confirm. I will shift the bug to not reproducible/quirks or delete it if not confirmed.

[zhuge]

I have received a report that Romag's alternate 2nd quest cannot be completed. If Rentsch is dead, Romag will give you this alternate 2nd quest starting at line:

{270}{That is awful news indeed! I told him not to trust that sneaky Wat! I'm sure Alrrem had Wat just outright kill him! I must have revenge! Alrrem must pay!}{That is awful news indeed! I told him not to trust that sneaky Wat! I'm sure Alrrem had Wat just outright kill him! I must have revenge! Alrrem must pay!}{}{270}{}{}


Progressing to:

{280}{Let's see. [scheming] I want Alrrem's two under-priests dead. Both of them! He must learn not to mess with the Earth Temple. This will teach him I think!}{Let's see. [scheming] I want Alrrem's two under-priests dead. Both of them! He must learn not to mess with the Earth Temple. This will teach him I think!}{}{280}{}{game.global_flags[119] = 1}


If you have already killed the underpriests, you should have this option:

{281}{I already killed those under-priests.}{}{8}{game.global_flags[115] == 1 and game.global_flags[116] == 1}{360}{game.quests[44].state = qs_completed}

If you haven't killed the underpriests but accept his quest, you can go and do so. After killing them and returning you should be at:

{300}{Ah, so the wandering son has returned. What have you for me this time?}{Ah, so the wondering daughter has returned. What have you for me this time?}{}{300}{}{}

which should progress to:

{317}{It wasn't easy, but I've assassinated Alrrem's two under-priests for you.}{}{8}{game.global_flags[115] == 1 and game.global_flags[116] == 1 and game.global_flags[119] == 1 and game.quests[45].state == qs_unknown}{350}{game.quests[44].state = qs_completed}

But you don't seem to get this line when you return to him after you have killed the underpriests. .


I'm not sure regarding the extra criteria for line {317}:
game.quests[45].state == qs_unknown

when compared to line {281}.

Could this be the cause of the problem?

EDIT: Looks like it isn't. That criteria prevents the line from being selected a second time after the third quest is accepted.
Tested the quest again and it seemed to work fine. Need to reconfirm the bug report...

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by zhuge
I have checked {6226}{Masterwork breastplate}.
It has an icon in the inventory
It also has a graphical image when you click on 3d model from inventory
It also has an image in the game. Looks whitish/silver in colour when put on a character. Doesn't seem invisible to me.

Tests done by putting armor on a Cleric and a Paladin.

Monks do not register any armor put on them on their 3d model or in the game. Please confirm. I will shift the bug to not reproducible/quirks or delete it if not confirmed.

Okay, I will rebuy it tonight and try it again.

[zhuge]

CURRENT STATUS OF UNCOPYABLE SCROLLS

Most if not all reasons for this lie with Col312 (spell) in protos.tab not being coded appropriately.

Below is the list of non-functional Col312 entries followed by the corrected one:


A)These have already been corrected in v2.0 Co8 patch but still need to be incorporated into the 2nd official patch:

{9400}{Scroll of resist energy}
'Resist Energy' class_ranger 1
'Resist Energy' class_sorcerer 2

{9536}{Scroll of wind wall}
'Wind Wall' class_ranger 2
'Wind Wall' class_sorcerer 2

{9011}{Scroll of animate dead}
'Animate Dead' class_cleric 3
'Animate Dead' class_sorcerer 4

{9028}{Scroll of bestow curse}
'Bestow Curse' class_cleric 3
'Bestow Curse' class_sorcerer 4

{9244}{Scroll of invisibility, greater}
'Greater Invisibility' domain_special 4
'Greater Invisibility' class_sorcerer 4


B)These have not been corrected in v2.0 Co8 patch and need to be incorporated into the 2nd official patch:

{9369}{Scroll of protection from energy}
'Protection from Energy' class_ranger 2
'Protection from Energy' class_sorceror 3

Checked through a recent list given by Merle Corey at Co8, eliminated repeats and added the following still uncorrected uncopyable spells and their proposed solutions:

{9008}{Scroll of animal growth}
'Animal Growth' class_druid 5
'Animal Growth' class_sorcerer 5

{9542}{Scroll of blight}
'Blight' class_druid 4
'Blight' class_sorcerer 5

{9076}{Scroll of contagion}
'Contagion' class_cleric 3
'Contagion' class_sorceror 4

{9128}{Scroll of dismissal}
'Dismissal' class_cleric 4
'Dismissal' class_sorceror 5



As for:
{9467}{Scroll of summon monster I}
'Summon Monster I' class_sorcerer 1

it appears that the entry in Col312 is correct. I will need to retest to confirm uncopyability.


Some corresponding 3.5e SRD info for checking and reference:

Protection from Energy
Abjuration
Level: Clr 3, Drd 3, Luck 3, Protection 3, Rgr 2, Sor/Wiz 3

Resist Energy
Abjuration
Level: Clr 2, Drd 2, Fire 3, Pal 2, Rgr 1, Sor/Wiz 2

Wind Wall
Evocation [Air]
Level: Air 2, Clr 3, Drd 3, Rgr 2, Sor/Wiz 3

Animate Dead
Necromancy [Evil]
Level: Clr 3, Death 3, Sor/Wiz 4

Bestow Curse
Necromancy
Level: Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 4

Animal Growth
Transmutation
Level: Drd 5, Rgr 4, Sor/Wiz 5

Blight
Necromancy
Level: Drd 4, Sor/Wiz 5

Contagion
Necromancy [Evil]
Level: Clr 3, Destruction 3, Drd 3, Sor/Wiz 4

Dismissal
Abjuration
Level: Clr 4, Sor/Wiz 5

[zhuge]

CURRENT STATUS OF UNSCRIBABLE SPELLS

Neutralize Poison now correctly detects the prerequisite for scribing when the incorrect line number {9326} is replaced with {9327}.

Ice Storm, Identify and Protection from Law are not in the scribing list simply because their numbers were not put in the list:
2 - items that can be made with Scribe Scroll
in item creation.mes from rules subdirectory

Putting the appropriate numbers: 9237, 9238 and 9372 now enables these spells to be scribed. Prerequisites are correct too.

[zhuge]

Corrections for Romag's 3rd quest (Earth):

In 00119romag.dlg:

Changed the following lines from:
{409}{He is already dead!}{}{1}{game.global_flags[105] == 1}{510}{}

{354}{Who this Big Sore Neck guy?}{}{-7}{}{420}{}

{423}{I've already killed Besornig.}{}{8}{}{510}{}
{424}{Me kill Big Sore Neck already.}{}{-7}{}{510}{}

to:
{409}{He is already dead!}{}{1}{game.global_flags[105] == 1}{510}{game.quests[45].state = qs_completed}

{354}{Who this Big Sore Neck guy?}{}{-7}{game.quests[46].state == qs_unknown}{420}{}

{423}{I've already killed Besornig.}{}{8}{game.global_flags[105] == 1}{510}{game.quests[45].state = qs_completed}
{424}{Me kill Big Sore Neck already.}{}{-7}{game.global_flags[105] == 1}{510}{game.quests[45].state = qs_completed}


I need to return home for the next few days and will not have access to the game. Therefore, I won't be able to do any field tests during this period. I will try to bring as many files as I can and a few necessary tools. Hope I still have Internet access. My home line isn't very stable.

Please keep the bug reports and feature requests coming. I will update the buglist when I am able to.

[zhuge]

There still are quite a few dialogue problems. I think these should be fixable but someone needs to spend some time going through them:

-After completing Allrem's second quest with the violent option, I did not get the third quest.

-exposing the spies in the trading post doesn't give 200 gp

-after visiting the ToEE, upon meeting Rentsch he behaves as if he knows you even if he doesn't, and options to complete the Wat quest are available

-If you finish a subtemple leader's quests, but don't go to the Greater Temple right away, the game will assume that when you do get down there you are in the company of the first priest. This produces incoherent dialog. It's particularly bad if you do Belsornig's quests last, since he doesn't accompany you down to
the Greater Temple himself.


I'm not sure whether the 2nd bug listedabove is true though. Well, anyone up for some dialogue manipulation?

Steve Moret will probably start working on the 2nd patch after Dec 19th and it would be nice to have taken care of some minor quirks so that he can focus all his time on the major bugs involving the ToEE.exe and the various CTDs and slowdowns.

[Raaagh]

I haven't seen the Rannos/Gremag bug where they don't give you the 200 gold. I checked the dlg files and they seem okay.

Speaking of which, while I was poking around Gremag's dlg file, I noticed something about an assassin prestige class near the end of the file! Did anyone notice this too?

[zhuge]

Originally posted by Raaagh
I haven't seen the Rannos/Gremag bug where they don't give you the 200 gold. I checked the dlg files and they seem okay.

Speaking of which, while I was poking around Gremag's dlg file, I noticed something about an assassin prestige class near the end of the file! Did anyone notice this too?

I've checked the dlg files as well and agree that they seem Ok. I wasn't able to reproduce the bug on in-game testing.

The assassin is triggered only if you sell Lareth's belongings to Rannos/Gremag. I haven't experienced this myself but reports say that it works Ok so I suppose that part of dialogue should work fine after you take care of the assassin.

[Raaagh]

There's one more thing I noticed in Gremag's dlg file and playing in-game. When you negotiate with Gremag, there are -two- options for the 200 gold-diplomacy thing. In the dlg file, they go to the same line after as well! I assume that this was either a typo (like asking for 300 gold if you had over 7 dip, but that would be two typos) or that they accidentally made two lines for it..

It would be relatively safe to delete one of those lines, right?