Timing on Terrifying and Scamper

[Adran]

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

I'm not sure I see the significance of this at all.  All of those actions would do the exact same thing with or without "within range."  

An Action with a RG of 8  that said "place a marker" would work identically to "place a marker within range."  In fact, I recall asking about this in some other thread and we [the people who responded, not necessarily you and I] couldn't see any distinction.  

 

It's not what I say, it's the actual text in the rulebook. 

 I don't think we actually differ on our interpretation of their intentions.  As I mentioned, I believe the text on page 22 is likely a result of their attempting to encompass all uses of range in one sentence.  I'm not convinced their intention was to prevent applying an Action's effect beyond its range in all cases. 

 

To preserve the outcome you want, rather than simply say you're relying on an interpretation of their intent, you've attempted to:

1)  Add timing requirements to the sentence that simply don't exist

4)  Divine meaning from reminder text, or the absence thereof. 

 

I've said that in the core rules you can't prove either. You have neither agreed or refuted this. As far as I'm concerned, I'm posting to discuss why we should infer one reading over the other. 

As far as I see your statement is adding timing, where as mine isn't( I have said you only do it when it is written to do it, I'm not sure how that is adding timing). 

I've also said which reading I think makes the most sense in the context of the other rules And the actions. 

If the answer is

you check range when the rules or actions tell you to then the " reminder text "' isn't that it's the permission required to make the check in step 5 that allows us to use the actions range as everyone knows it plays. 

If the answer is 

You are constantly checking range, then the reminder text is just strangely added to some actions and not others with no real reason because it makes no difference. 

 

Unless you add anything to the discussion, I'm leaving It there. We both seem to believe the intent was the same, I've just tried to explain why I think the written rules can agree with the intent. 

[LeperColony]

6 hours ago, Adran said:

As far as I see your statement is adding timing, where as mine isn't( I have said you only do it when it is written to do it, I'm not sure how that is adding timing). 

It's adding timing because you're inserting a conditional requirement into an unqualified statement.  If you take an absolute effect and create conditions for it that aren't present, then it's no longer absolute.

It's the exact same as claiming you'd need some inciting measuring event before you could generate the effects of an .

6 hours ago, Adran said:

You are constantly checking range, then the reminder text is just strangely added to some actions and not others with no real reason because it makes no difference. 

The irony here is that a few posts ago, you claimed the text on page 22 was "descriptive," almost an afterthought or something that has no game effect.

But now it's so critical that they have to use reminder text, that otherwise under your theory has no other effect, just to preserve your "measure only when told to" theory.  

I suppose in your games, constant effects like  only exist when you check for range?  What if they don't target?  What if they're not an action, so you never even enter the steps?  What if it's an ability?

The reality that the game is constantly checking range for these effects seems manifestly clear, and must be the way you play them also, even if you currently don't want to describe them in those terms.  But since they are constantly checking range, clearly range checks are not limited to when you're explicitly told to measure.

6 hours ago, Adran said:

Unless you add anything to the discussion, I'm leaving It there. We both seem to believe the intent was the same, I've just tried to explain why I think the written rules can agree with the intent. 

Well, first, take note how the discussion has shifted.  If you now accept that the text accepts both results, then this becomes a matter of interpretation and either way of playing it is textually valid (or, to be more correct, textually supported).  Which was not at all how you and those with the position that you can't Scamper away have been describing it.

So then the arrived consensus is that this is something you should probably discuss with your group and use the result that seems most amenable to your members.