>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?

Fails to hurt is better at describing zero damage. But it is not necessary better in other aspects. Multi-words and, perhaps, some will think that it sounds "bad" (though I don't think so).

>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.

I'm not happy with "unspeaK" too, but it will be too much to ask about changing it as well.
And I would rather prefer to hear suggestions from native speakers as I'm not the best person to pick the right word.

>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.

I fail to grasp any logic in this sentence.
However, they can't implement my highlights on the server side as they can use only ANSI color codes with 16 predefined colors unless they decide to use a different protocol (like MXP) instead of raw telnet.