I think part of what I didn't explain is that I wasn't saying Alter Range makes you into a melee machine or to forget about melee focused characters because of it. I was comparing the utility and power level of Alter Range to other immutos because that is a much more fair comparison. I didn't mean to imply that somehow a caster who took Alter Range would be out fighting melee characters in melee. It would be silly to compare them. I don't think I actually did compare them, but now that is on the table.
My intended focus was that you gain a benefit from reducing the TN of the spell, and you can gain a benefit from reducing the range of the spell with Alter Range. Compare this to Increase AP as an example. Lower the TN ( an advantage ), increase the AP ( a drawback ). Or say Reduce AP. Reduce the AP ( advantage ), increase the TN ( drawback ). Or Reduce Damage. Lower the TN ( an advantage ) , lower the damage ( a drawback). It seemed to be common formula and logic behind immutos, a plus and a minus. In the case of being caught in melee, it is plus/plus for Alter Range. The immuto is plus/plus, not being caught in melee. I agree that is usually not a good time for said caster.
Anyway, sorry for any frustrations anyone has had in replying to this. I understood what people have been saying, I just wasn't specific enough that my issue was that if you are caught in melee ( or with a proper character set up, wanted to be in melee ) , then Alter Range is pure profit, with no drawback unto itself.