Question: When a character adjacent to a Parademon Drill Sergeant ("PDS") makes an attack roll that combined with its attack value exceeds the target's defense value (i.e., a "hit"), but the target character makes a successful Super Senses roll that evades the attack, is the attacking character dealt one unavoidable damage? Stated another way, is an evasion of an attack a miss or is the evasion irrelevant to determining whether a "hit" occurred.

PDS special power states in relevant part: "Darkseid's Motivational Techniques (non-optional): When an adjacent friendly character makes an attack. . . If the attack misses all targets, deal the attacking character 1 unavoidable damage." The question is when does a character miss an attack? I couldn't find a formal definition for "miss" in the Rulebook or Players Guide.

One way to look at it is to define "miss" as the opposite of a "hit." (I think this is the correct way of defining miss.) The FF Rulebook defines "hit" as "[w]hen the result of 2d6 and the attacker's attack value is equal to or greater than the defense value of the target." FF Rulebook Glossary, p. 23. Therefore, a character misses an attack only when its 2d6 result is less than the target's defense value. This definition also comport's with the Rulebook's characterization of a successful attack roll: "If the attack total [2d6 result + attack value] is equal to or greater than the target's defense value, the attack succeeds; otherwise, it fails." FF Rulebook, p. 8. Under this definition of miss, the answer to the above-posed question would be no damage is dealt because the attacking character did not miss the attack notwithstanding any other game effect. There would be a hit that was evaded.

However, I could see how it could be argued that the operation of Super Senses (or any other effect causing an attack to be evaded) could make for a different result. Super Senses states: "When this character is hit by an attack, roll a d6before damage is dealt. On a result of 5 or 6, this character evades the attack." The FF glossary defines "evade" as "to avoid being hit by an attack that would normally be successful." FF Rulebook Glossary, p. 23. I can see how it could be argued that an attacking character misses an attack if the target evades the attack. Under this definition for "miss," the unavoidable damage would be dealt by PDS's special power.

I think the key issue is that we don't have a formal definition for the term "MISS." If a miss only occurs when a character doesn't roll a "hit," then I think no damage would be dealt by PDS's special power when a Super Senses roll evades the attack. However, if a miss can also occur when a character evades an attack, then I think damage would be dealt by PDS's special power.

Thanks for any helpful input!

The best way I can explain it without typing up a novel is this

Takedown
Prerequisites: Incapacitate or Plasticity

Choose a character.

If an opposing character makes an unsuccessful close combat attack against the character, after the action is resolved give the opposing character an extra action token if it has zero or one action token. If the opposing character already had one action token on it, giving it a second action token deals pushing damage normally.

Lets say you assign this feat to HoT Venom. Venom is being attacked by an enemy. Venom misses his shape change and is attacked. the attacker rolls what it needs to succeed in the attack. Venom rolls his Super senses, thus successfully "evading" the attack. Because venom evaded the attack the attacker missed thus recieving an extra action token applied by the feat Takedown.

Using this logic, it can be applied the same way to the PDS special power.

There's not necessarily a direct correlation between an "unsuccessful attack" and a "miss" here.

The figure is hit by the attack, then evades it.

(Yes, I realize the insanity of that statement.)

As written, I would say that while Super Senses evading the attack changes it to an unsuccessful one, it does not make it miss.

The official answer may be different.

But takedown doesn't use the term "miss", does it? I thought that was the Crux of the OP's question. Did I misunderstand?

So the answer is...

...whatever your judge says, as always.

(repeating over and over in my head) ((orange tints have a purpose, orange tints have a purpose orange tints have a purpose, orange tints have a purposorange tints have a purpose))

That purpose was fulfilled above.

When there is leeway on how a ruling could be, then we say what we would do, but clearly mark that as an opinion. The question is then taken to nbperp to ensure that it receives an official answer.


EDIT: What's a Rules Deputy?

Harpua's answer sounds good to me. The Parademon's pal did hit the target - it's not their fault the target dodged it.

Working in cubicled corporate America taught me this trick long ago: always pass the blame on to someone else (preferably someone else who can then also pass the blame).

what are ya trying to say sir?

If I'm wrong, I can blame Norm, but flakbait is then also wrong, but he can blame me, but since I'm blaming Norm, we're all good.

Norm, of course, can blame the designers. They can blame Daniel Webster and Peter Roget.

Oh, lol, that's not quite what I was saying. I was making a silly metaphor for how the character adjacent to the Parademon Sergeant could get out of the whipping he or she would normally receive for missing by saying that they did technically hit, the target simply dodged.

Based on the wording, I came to the same conclusion, even though it seems a little counterintuitive. The target is technically hit, but the target evades, so there isn't a miss and no damage is taken from PDS's special power. I think the problem could have been avoided if "miss" had not been used in PDS's special power or if we had a formal definition for "miss" in the Rulebook glossary.