My response is bolded, Dwoggurd's text in reference is not.

>Reasons why "barely scratches" isn't the best for this:
>1) not very accurate description of zero damage. "scratches"
>assumes some damage even it's just "barely". Strictly
>speaking, for zero damage "misses" was better.

In this case, the attack does not miss. It hits, but fails to hurt due to the opponent's damage reduction. It does not make sense that a lash "misses" you, yet lags you for two rounds. If you have problem with "barely scratches" in this sense, maybe replace it with "fails to hurt", which is also a slightly shorter expression as well?

>2) It is not conforming with the single-worded style for
>nearly all other damage verbs (except the unspeak). I don't
>think that breaking this trend was necessary as there are
>other verbs that could describe zero damage better and in a
>single word.

Unspeaks doesn't conform to it either. The fact remains that you haven't yet suggested a better single word alternative for "barely scratches". Your suggestion, "touches", was worse than barely scratches.

>3) Minor issue: highlights needs an update. They would need an
>update anyway, but for a single verb it's more
>regular/easier.

If your highlights are that great, they should be implemented in the game. This is why I think Imms shouldn't care about ####ing over your highlights.