It's not taking damage for "having two tokens". Having two tokens just establishes the condition in which Incap deals damage. It's not damage from another game mechanic (i.e. pushing), it's damage from an attack.

Incapper A hits Mystic. Mystic gets a token, but no damage. Mystics does not trigger.

Incapper B hits the same Mystic. Mystic gets a second token and takes one click of pushing damage. Mystics does not trigger. (The source of damage was the push.)

Incapper C hits the same Mystic. Mystic takes one penetrating damage. Mystics does trigger. (The source of damage was the attack.)

Its obvious that the language foes not make sense to me. That makes me neither a troll nor an idiot. Others have already stated its confusing, and there is no need for posts like yours. Reported....

It may not be serious stuff.....but it is very frustrating when these little instances come up in game. I try not to take a lot of this stuff TOO seriously, but these are the instances that make it hard not too.

Are you continuing to miss the part where incapacitate is an attack that deals one damage (conditionally) as per it's own rules? There is no "game rule" that does what incapacitate does, incapacitate is dealing that damage as an attack. The problem I think you are having is that incapacitate uses the game term "deals no damage" which is defined a certain way in the rulebook, but incapacitate ALSO provides an exception where it can deal one damage.

I try not to take life too seriously. The rules aren't clearly written, there's not enough prize support, the duration is variable and unknown, you run into too many dinks, and hardly anyone plays Theme.

Games, however, should have structure and rules and everyone should know exactly what they're getting into when they sit down and get into it.

Life casual. Rules serious. Always play for fun.
Stay Theme-y.

The clause at the end of incapacitate is why it will trigger mystics IF AND ONLY IF THE TARGET THAT IS HIT ALREADY HAS 2 ACTION TOKENS. The clause essentially changes the rule in a very specific case that cause incapacitate to end up dealing damage from the attack

Incapacitate:
Give this character a close combat or ranged combat action to make an attack that deals no damage. If the attack hits, give the target an action token; if the target already has 2 action tokens, deal the target 1 penetrating damage.

damage dealt is conditional. if you only give a character a token and they don't take damage from it, you wouldn't take mystics damage. if they already have two tokens and it causes them to therefore take a click, you would activate mystics because the attack is therefore dealing damage. if you cause them to have a second token, which would force them to push, your attack is not dealing damage, the rule stating that characters push deal the damage.


on a different note your comment about force blast and rolling doubles being the same thing is wrong. they are two separate entities. one is a power action to push a character away from you, the other is hitting a character in such a lucky way that it throws them back away from you. if this causes them to hit a wall or fall off elevated and they take damage, the wall or ground is dealing the damage not the character. the rules specifically state that knock back damage is not dealt by the character and is not an attack.

hope this helps

Reported???

Sweet. I feel like a bad boy. Time to grease back my hair and light a cigarette.

I will point out, though, that I did give you enough benefit of the doubt to also take the time and effort to post a serious response to your query.
Thanks.

There were insults, flames and threats ?

Yeah, I'm at a loss for that one. Really? That is a post someone would choose to report? I don't report any posts ever. Period (OK, spambots). Boggles my mind that people have skin that thin.

I don't think it's intuitive or clear. The power is just plain poorly worded.

This is a very good way of putting it. As someone who is regularly the one responsible for explaining rule technicalities to people, I appreciate you doing the work for me

There were insults, flames or threats. That statement was true when d_knight said it.

As someone who has been in that exact same position, I completely understand why he reported what he did. I actually would have if he hadn't already. There is no need to call people "trolls" or otherwise insult them for not jumping to the same conclusions you have.

do you even know what a troll is? its someone who pulls pranks... not an insult at all. it is the modern day way of saying "are you pulling my leg"

It is a shame people were being less than mature, but the issue isn't that one isn't jumping to the same conclusions they have, the issue is from a simple reading of the powers.

Incapacitate includes a conditional rule for dealing damage, the entire second half of the rules for the power are this conditional rule. It is a unique rule specific to incapacitate that allows it to deal damage in spite of not being able to. This is an exception clearly listed within the primary rule for the power. Incapacitate is also an attack.

As I tried to explain before someone incapacitates a target with two action tokens and mystics asks:

Was there an attack? Yes, incapacitate is an attack.
Did the attack deal damage? Yes, the exception to the general "deals no damage" that is clearly written in the power itself, they had two tokens so the incapacitate attack dealt them a damage.

Mystics therefore activates.

This doesn't require any jumping to conclusions, it is a simple step by step. We seem to be stuck on the "incapacitate deals no damage" argument in spite of the fact that the entire second half of the power is a specific exception to that, and allows one damage to be dealt if that exception is met. How we are continuing to talk in circles is beyond me.

I disagree, anthony. By my count, there have been 18 different attempts to explain why this works. As confusing rules go, this is not one of them and as a rational being, I would expect another rational being at around time 17 of this being explained would sit back and evaluate his position. Instead, he brings this thread to a new level of low by running to teacher when somebody called him on it.

You are great at finding inconsistent language in rules and I always appreciate your posts, so correct me and I will accept it: is there anything unclear in this particular language?
To ask again in another way, is there anything that I an missing that would lend credence to what I would say is the OP's insanity?