GENERAL MUSING NOTE: That's kind of what the Rules Forum entails at this point, IMO. Word-twisting, selective reading, selective understanding, arguing against concrete rulings...

Yep, kinda sucks (IMO).

good point

Yep, this. There comes a point at which the ruling is the ruling, and it's time to move on.

To clarify, I don't find rules questions to be irritating. I find repeated rules questions regarding pretty clear cut rulings and interactions to be irritating.

For 2/3 of the time, Incapacitate will deal 'no damage'. Either the target has 0 or 1 action token and another will be applied. For the other 1/3 of the time (when a target has 2 tokens), you deal that target 1 penetrating damage.

Would the discussion be over if it was this:

I wouldn't have even suggested the possibility that OP was trolling if he wasn't so stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the last line of the incap power and people's explanations. It's not like I just shouted "TROLL!!!" on the first page.

But there does come a point when stubborn refusal to acknowledge official rulings and talking down or ignoring earnest attempts for clarification from other posters DOES become a form of trolling. Even if that wasn't your initial motivation.

It is incredibly difficult to wrap your brain around "this attack that deals no damage actually deals damage". Does that mean it acts like an attack that deals damage every time it does? Or like one that deals no damage? Or like a little of each? The answer would be easy to accept and understand if it was 100% always acts like that one or this one, but when it sometimes acts like each, it can be very confusing. You want to know why it acts like each one at different times and how to know it acted like that at that time to prepare yourself for powers or abilities that will interact oddly with this because you want to be able to predict how they would work.

For example, if a character had
"When character deals damage, increase the damage dealt by 1."
Following the logic that crit hits don't work with incap, one might want to jump to the conclusion this doesn't either. But knowing mystics works against incap might make one think this power does work with incap.
Add the subtle differences likely to be seen:
"When character hits, increase damage dealt by 1."
And things get trickier.

I am not saying the answer isn't in the text currently. I am not saying it isn't clear to me who understands what's going on. All I'm saying is it is understandable why someone may still be confused and want more explanation. The answer is clear and easy to understand when you already know it, but it is much more difficult when you don't. For an example, go learn/teach physics. That's exactly how I feel right now in that subject every time someone teaches it to me. "Oh it's simple, just do this incredibly convoluted thing that should be entirely intuitive."

This is some pretty dismissive language in his interactions and it's all just from the first page.
By the end of just the first page, it was clearly becoming irritating.
To provoke that sort of reaction within a few posts of discussion when folks are honestly trying to help with your query IS classic troll behavior.

If you don't want to get called a troll, then try being less dismissive and more gracious when people are trying to help you.

Neither of those work, incap deals no damage but for a specific exception that allows it to deal one penetrating damage when and only when that exception is met. If that exception is met one is all the damage it can deal because the damage dealing is a specific exception to deal one penetrating damage and no more. The exception is pretty clear "this is an attack that deals no damage, however, if this condition is met deal one penetrating damage"

This sums up about half of the issues I have with Clix, right now. If you read the PAC, and the Rulebook, and the Player's Guide, and surf Forums, and check other Online clarifications, then this game is, usually, fairly easy to follow. There is a logic to the way these rules are written, it just takes a lot of effort to get there.

Except for those times when the rules aren't clear.
Or the intent from Game Design wasn't actually worded correctly on the card to work the way it's supposed to.
Or there was a Player's Guide change and/or clarification that you need to see to understand how it works.
Or any other thing that, if you miss one piece of the puzzle, then you can't figure out how it's supposed to look.

Too often, this game lacks clarity in understanding how effects work, and how effects interact. Continuing lack of clarity has damaged my confidence in the rules, both as they are written and how I understand them. Then there's game balance, but that's another Thread entirely.

I don't see this as one of the things I have a problem interpreting, but for all I know, I've been reading it incorrectly for the last year.

Feel free to apply that last sentence to almost everything that's come out in the last year.

Are you sure about that? I was definitely under the impression that damage could be increased. (Not by any existing game effect in the ways I proposed, but in the future, by something similar, should it ever arise and that character have incap)

Anthony, as specificities trump generalities (or to put it another way exceptions change the rules) I would agree that in the future an effect may exist that could increase incapacitates "exceptional" damage. I am pretty sure that currently there are no such exceptions to change incapacitates damage but I could be wrong, and would be happy to be shown wrong if that is the case!

But that is notwithstanding the original point, I do not believe any logical leap is required to see how that exception allows incapacitate, as an attack to "deal the target one penetrating damage" as its own rules state. Nor how that one damage is not damage from an attack for the purposes of mystics. The inquiry that started this thread has a fairly straightforward (especially for clix) solution present within the rulebook/PAC.

So we have the statement "an attack that deals no damage". That's pretty straightforward. Unlike a standard attack, using this power means that instead of doing damage, you give them an action token.
Clear?

Then there is the last part:
"if the target already has 2 action tokens, deal the target 1 penetrating damage."
there's only a semi-colon, so it's still part of the earlier sentence that began with "If the attack hits".
So that tells us a) we're still using Incapacitate and b) the attack has to have been successful.
This segment starts with a conditional clause, "if the target already has 2 action tokens". So that gives us two conditions to meet, the attack hitting, and the target already having two tokens. If both of those conditions are met, then the target is dealt 1 penetrating damage.

The only reason I can see for there to be confusion here, is if you take "an attack that deals no damage" as some sort on unalterable gospel truth. But if you have that mentality, then that whole final segment would be entirely meaningless and should not exist. Since that final segment DOES exist, it becomes incumbent upon the reader to accept that the initial statement of "an attack that deals no damage" is alterable. It must be, or else there's no point to having that final line. What alters it? Hitting a character that already has two action tokens.

Does that help?

Because there gets to be a point where it just become argument for the sake of argument.

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.

Mystics
When a character using the Mystics team ability takes damage from an attack, the attacker is dealt 1 unavoidable damage. This damage is not an attack.

NO DAMAGE
An attack that deals no damage ignores modifiers to the damage value. Attacks that deal no damage deal neither critical hit damage to the target nor critical miss damage to the attacker (see Rolling 2 and 12: Critical Misses and Critical Hits, below).

No Damage is a specific game term defined in the rulebook, and clearly tells you how it treats Criticals. Incapacitate will be a "No Damage" attack even if damage is dealt. Mystics is not worried about what kind of attack it is. Only that it is an Attack and damage was taken.

I find your bold font to be highly aggressive and worrisome. It's like you're shouting at everyone that you're going to turn this car around before we get to the circus. Consider yourself on report.