Can I consume your ass and pussy en masse ? <| sep |> Finally got it after many , many frustrating attempts . Key for me was two attempts two healers for the limit burst achievement and Rydia for the Evocation achievement . <| sep |> Interesting , did you also wager on that theory ? <| sep |> It ' s a pretty well known British term as far as I ' m aware , meaning pretty much the same thing . I didn ' t make it up , promise ! For reference <| sep |> The point I ' m trying to make is that if the common sense expected behaviour opcoderesulting changes don ' t have an effect on trie state if the tx hits OOG was ignored by the node leading to unexpected state , a service that is build on top of Eth that implements some internal accounting of its own for whatever reason speed , implementation concerns , etc then a bug like this could lead the service to deviate from the eth network ' s state , causing issues of lost money resources conflicts for offchain data . Anything that implements its own copy of gas accounting in this detail is effectively another client . Something like this seems extremely unlikely , to me . For a trivial example relevant to here , say you ' ve created your own account tracking according to the spec because you need to send transactions to many addresses and then clean them up after you ' re done , for whatever reason . Assuming your tracking doesn ' t update your own service ' s target account state if the TX goes OOG then if you don ' t catch this you would be left with an internal accounting error at the end of your execution , because you would attempt the transactions twice that errored , causing different gas costs because now those addresses are empty . But if you ' re doing this , you ' re open to any variation at all between your implementation and the specs again , you ' re effectively writing at least part of a client . This particular issue , where it ' s not even explicit in the EIP which approach is correct , is a red herring by comparison . To me and I assume most devs , if I was creating an automated system OOG means retry same , with more gas in this case this would lead to unexpected results . This would still be exactly what you should do , and everything would behave exactly the way you ' d expect . There ' s literally no way , inside a transaction , to distinguish between the two clients ' implementations of this issue .