When I said 2 damage dealt is coming from a 1 D.V. character, I would agree with you mathematically that 1 comes from the character and 1 comes from a card effect. However, damage dealt is damage dealt regardless of all the sources it comes from. It's probably best to not go too far into it to avoid confusion.

However, if we were to get technical, I would have to disagree that 1 damage dealt comes from the BFC. The 1 damage dealt increase is an increase to damage dealt from some source.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of a few sources of damage dealt:

Attacks
Knockback (separate from the original attack)
Earthquake
Push damage

and only a few increases to damage dealt added onto the original source:

AW BFC
objects
critical hits

Not to nitpick, but Pushing Damage is not damage dealt. It is a completely separate entity that is more similar to damage taken, in the way the rule book describes it as an automatic turning of the dial. If pushing damage was damage dealt, the things like Toughness and other damage reducers would be far more desirable than Willpower; not only would it reduce pushing damage, but all other sources of damage dealt.

Oh that's right. I forget...does it still say "deal 1 pushing damage..." in the text for pushing? Anyway, you're right that it is more like damage taken and better to think of it that way instead of as a special form of damage dealt. Thanks for the save.

I remember over on the WK forums HC1234 once asked why all these ways to "cause damage that can't be reduced/avoided/evaded/dodged/ducked or otherwise ignored" weren't simply called damage taken. Like Mystics is written now.

I guess now we'll have unavoidable and penetrating. Should be interesting.

I am curious 1) about the definition of penetrating, 2) if the wording of AP will be changed because of it, and 3) if that will in turn cause this ruling to "go away".

Here's exactly what he rule book says (page 13). Nowhere is 'damage dealt' mentioned:

PUSHING
If you give an action (other than a free action) to the same character on two consecutive turns, place a second action token on that character and turn that character’s combat dial once clockwise (the same direction you click a character when it takes damage) after it resolves the action. This is called pushing a character, resulting in pushing damage. The clockwise click represents fatigue caused by taking actions back to back. You may not give any character an action (other than a free action) on three consecutive turns. Pushing damage may occur if a character is the target of or uses some powers, team abilities, or feats. Any time a second action token is placed on a character for any reason, that character
takes pushing damage. If use of a feat requires a character to take pushing damage, the pushing damage from the feat is applied to the character before the pushing damage from taking a second consecutive action.

It would help if it was simplified like that. The only real reason I could think not to do it that way is the current wording of Willpower. If Pushing Damage was lumped into the 'damage taken' category, WP would have to be reworded in such a way as to still avoid the effects of a second token while not avoiding the effects of other sources of damage taken (i.e. Mystics). Not that it couldn't be reworded in that way, but it would take a little revision to avoid loopholes.

My guess is that penetrating will be defined exactly like the current wording of Psychic Blast and Exploit Weakness. Something like "penetrating: damage dealt from this attack ignores powers that reduce damage."

That way, all that would currently have to change is the wording on the PAC. You would just see an entry that says something "Psychic Blast: Give this character a ranged combat action. Damage from this action is penetrating." All the game mechanics are the same, no reason to rewrite big sections of the rule book re-defining damage dealt and such.

Also, I don't think Armor Piercing would have to be changed at all. AP isn't necessarily penetrating, it just prevents the damage from being reduced below 1. As long as damage isn't reduced below 1 (say, by dealing very high damage that exceeds the amount of reduction), there is no reason for AP to kick in; if it was made to be penetrating, it would probably function more like PB and EW. And the current cost of the card is waaaaaaaaaay too low to allow Supes to deal all of his damage without any fear of reducers.

Ah, I missed that last time I read the FAQ.

As for Supes, we need a couple of feat cards, one that encases us in lead cause Supes can't see through lead and maybe an object rather than a feat, kryptonite that removes all of supes powers when he is within 3 squares and acts as hindering terrain for him so he has to stop when entering the AOE and move at half movement while starting to move within the AOE. And make it a special object that anyone can carry, not just figs with super strength.
It would affect any fig with the Superman Ally, even WC that were copying it. And maybe Ultimates too since their TA is about the same as Superman Ally.

OK, howabout THIS: FF Hawkeye is surrounded by 10 figures, all with Invulnerability. Hawkeye has Armor Piercing and Shake Off. Armor Wars BFC is in play. Hawkeye successfully breaks away.

So: All characters are dealt 1 damage. Invulnerability kicks in and they try to reduce this damage. It cannot be reduced below 1 because of AP, and because of the attempt to reduce damage, Armor Wars kicks in to deal them all another click of damage. 20 total clicks of damage to my opponent, just for breaking away! Is this right? What kind of prize do I win?

Yes that's right. Each fig would take 2 clicks of damage in your example.
That's a good trick to use with giant figs too. For some reason people don't expect to be dealt shakeoff damage from 2 squares away. remember that you have to roll to breakaway for shakeoff to happen though.