Ooh, I really like Mister Id's explanation on this one. I will definitely keep that post to tee plain as needed (primarily, when teaching new players).

I can fully support both of these comments. I've been playing the game since the beginning and it still takes almost daily surfings and re-readings to get the rules right and even then, I make mistakes in some rulings. But, that is a different discussion for a different thread.

The question the OP asked was very specific and the answer to that specific question is not unclear. The points anthony brings up in his posts (which have merit) go beyond the initial question of the OP. That is also a different discussion, for perhaps a different thread.

This one is confusing enough without bringing physics into it!!!

I dismissed nothing. If you read it that way, then that is on you. I was countering points and examples using comparable language.....when someone says "its obviously from the attack," then I will respond in kind. When someone says "the last line of incap spites and counters the first line," and then cannot support that other than with the current ruling, that simply accoomplishes the "because i said so" defense.

As anthonybarnstable said, and I do appreciate.....it is not so clear to someone who doesn't understand the why.

Also to the point that "18 examples have been given,"..... its more like 18 people saying and bolding the same line of text over and over and over again.

And lastly, as to why I reported your post......I am sick and tired of people like you coming here and being, well, the way you are. Many others may be more tolerable of it, but I am done with it. I support this site like everyone else and have every right to post discussions like everyone else. And if you don't like that....then don't post nonsense.

I find having a sense of humor and appreciating the humor that others have to be the most enjoyable part of coming to this site.
You don't have to engage in said humor, but it won't stop me.

But please don't defend yourself against my accusation of being dismissive while also accusing me of posting "nonsense" when I've contributed several posts that gave honest and forthright responses to the discussion.

Irony of argument over small, language-based issues in game on National Grammar Day = palpable.

I still don't understand why an attack that deals no damage doesn't become an attack that deals damage when it, y'know, deals damage. That is the only inconsistency in the ruling to me. I don't actually find the wording of Incapacitate to be unclear...it's the ruling that I find to be non-intuitive and confusing.

Wouldn't it have been simpler to rule that Incap simply becomes an attack that deals damage (instead of an attack that deals no damage) if the target already has two action tokens? What are the potential pitfalls of such a ruling? Multi-targeting maybe (if the targets have different numbers of action tokens)?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pretty much this all day long. Its a one-off corner case that just doesn't add up.

Psh.
Grammar is just a tool for the linguistically uncreative to shackle the use of free expression.
Or to help make one be more clearly understood.

Aww, my post was deleted?

But why would we need to make incapacitate an attack that deals damage?

Incapacitate is an attack that doesn't deal damage in the sense that, when you hit, you do not deal damage based off your damage value (printed, replaced, modified, locked or otherwise) like most other attacks.

In the case where a target has two tokens, incapacitate still deals no damage in the traditional sense, but the power has the clause which causes it to deal a specific amount of damage in a specific condition. That damage doesn't make incapacitate an attack that deals damage. However, the damage does come as a result of the incapacitate attack and therefore triggers Mystics.

I'm still not sure what it is you find that doesn't add up.

There is very little disagreement on this issue. If you want me to show you a corner case with a questionable (imho) ruling, I've got a real one.

I understand how it works. I even get that it makes sense to you. I just think it would be more intuitive, since Mystics says:

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.

Holding to the concept that Incapacitate is an attack that deals no damage, even when there is a sentence in the power description that plainly states that it DOES deal damage under one particular circumstance, is not intuitive.

I actually like the result of the ruling. I think that's how it should work. In that situation, Incap becomes an Attack that deals (1) damage. That should trigger Mystics.

We've come to that stage in the game where rules lawyering takes precedent. Right or wrong, with a compelling enough argument you can convince people of just about any ruling.

Wait, "Are you funnin' me, boy?" is a reference? That's not a reference; that's Southern.

I feel like you're looking at the worst possible explanations.

There are people looking for a "loophole" to win, yes. But I would say that's vast minority.

There are people looking for CONSISTENCY (color me one of those) so that a ruling tells me not just how to rule on that ONE issue but one EVERY issue like it. Which is why you'll sometimes see me say "But hey, how does that ruling sync with this one?" I'm not trying to twist-words or anything, I want to understand WHY. I wasn't a huge fan of the Hair10 era but it was easier on me as a Judge as the official line was kind of "what seems less broken is how you should always rule."

For a lot of people it isn't selective understanding it's simply NOT understanding. I've mentioned this a few times recently but there was a Nico Ziran "use/can use" thread that HONESTLY took me like 20 pages before I FINALLY understood. I wasn't being dense on purpose. It's like those "I got a dig bick" shirts. The mind is easily tricked and when stuck in a rut it's hard to escape.

But that's my take on it.

The attack deals no damage, the damage is coming from the second token, so no mystic damage should be applied.