Because there's already a roll to KO it that that Batman doesn't have to make?

lol what?

I noticed this many moons ago and chalked it up as inconsistent min/max wording. Certainly don't think this is that big of a deal since the intent could not be clearer given that the figure it was designed to be used with has a zero range.

I'm not a judge but it seems pretty obvious to me that this should always end up an "Intent" ruling if there is any question whatsoever.

This is why I believe incompetent writers draft the rules for this game. So many grammatical errors...

Between the writers and the editors (if there are any), you can tell that most if not all don't play the game regularly. I've said for years that they should pick some of the top players (changing each year or every set or two), have them sign NDAs, and give them the write ups of new traits, powers, etc (removing names and flavor if they wanted to to help with the surprise of the set) to have them point out any problems from a game play perspective, catch grammatical errors that they notice, etc.

"Top players"? What qualifies them any more than anybody else who has a passing knowledge of grammar, sentence structure, and game continuity.

With a very persuasive player/opponent and/or a judge trying to follow literal wording as best he can without making his own intent ruling. What do they choose :
1. Play it as written, must have ability to make range attacks, but regardless of how high or low your range is, this works within 4 squares.
2. Consider it a permanent replacement value, which can then be further modified, and used for effects outside of the Batarangs.
3. Consider it a permanent minimum value, which can then be used for effects outside of the Batarangs.
4. Make it a Power action that grants a replacement/minimum, followed by a range attack.
5. Add the clause "equipped character may ignore the Rule of Zeros for range attacks".

Option one is the only one that doesn't cause the judge to have to choose their own intent ruling. Option 5 is likely how everyone is/will play it. I'm just saying it would be best to get something official, especially for those high level, high stakes games where players could get upset one way or the other.

But...but...IGNORE isn't a game term...

Well, I could ask my sister, who teaches high school English... Of course, I'd have to convince her to spend a few weeks/months of time she probably doesn't have to play a game she probably has no interest in and will have a hard time grasping, so she can understand all the game concepts and interoperabilility of powers...
Or we can open it up public opinion and ruin the release value of the new pieces and fish through the floods of opinions, feedback questions, etc.(aka, WIN, only pre-release)...
Or we can ask a group of people who clearly love the game, already spend their time on it, and have at least a decent grasp of how the rules and powers work. Would they be more 'qualified' than you or I, maybe, maybe not, but there's no magical cosmic directory of who would be best qualified, so it's a good starting point!

Yes, I get the sarcasm here, that perfectly valid English word with a specific grammatical meaning sometimes tends to cross realms into old-school game terms that are no longer applicable, and rightly pointed out as such. We can either accept it as it is, or use 'disregard' in it's place!
(By the way, the Rule Book uses this taboo word at least twice, and the CRS uses it at least once not counting it's entry under Past Rules, not to mention a number of game elements using it in their effect descriptions for it's grammatical use.)

Sassamo pretty much hit my response on the head... there's a big difference between game terms and English. It takes many players months or years of playing before they can grasp that.

"Top players" would be identified by rankings in major events... top 8- 10 in national, worlds, etc would be a good starting place. It's more than rare for a player to get that high and not have a very good grasp of the game language and how it works.

Knowing or having played many of these guys, nah...I'm good.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't be qualified, but being a "top player" means thinking from a top-down methodology, and as such this could (and probably has in the 15 years of the game) have a negative aspect.

Maybe more qualified than you, but not me. Maybe. I think there are rules folks out there who are well versed in the rules but aren't "top players" that do a fine job overall. This is an outlying corner case, but yes it's a mistake made. The figure COULD HAVE been designed before the rule of zero for all we know. Or, it could be that it was overlooked. As many rules changes as their are, human error is always going to be a factor.

While I agree that we are all human and even the best of us can make mistakes... wouldn't those top players be better than what we have now with the extreme number of errors we've seen?

We have reason to believe that is what happens.

And those notes are ignored.

With the number of mistakes made on video from those top events?

Not necessarily.

Top judges would be better.