pg 8, FF Rulebook:
Can you use Improvise to hit when snake eyes are rolled?
I think you can but you would still take the critical hit unavoidable damage.

I'm sure it'll be ruled that it isn't a crit miss, rather a hit.

My question with Improvised is: With great arena, would it make it a crit?

The card says any roll of doubles that misses, automatically hits, so it should work against a critical miss, and you shouldn't take any damage.

There are two effects that occur when you roll double ones. You automatically miss and you take one unavoidable damage. Improvise makes the miss into a hit but doesn't change anything with receiving the unavoidable damage. However, if you were to use Streak of Luck with counters on it, then you could avoid the unavoidable damage.

No, it's one effect: Critical Miss.

For much the same reason a roll that doesn't equal the defense equals a miss, double ones equals a critical miss.

Improvise seems to change the miss (and by nature of the beast, a critical miss) into a hit.

Hit's have their own rules and don't account for taking any amount of damage unless another effect stipulates as such

I have to disagree with you there. Improvise makes any roll of doubles into a hit. Two ones is a critical miss but it is also doubles so Improvise changes the missing aspect of a critical miss into a hit but doesn't change the rule on a critical miss dealing unavoidable damage.
Being dealt the one unavoidable damage from a critical miss doesn't change because a feat makes that particular die role into a hit. The unavoidable damage is not dependent on missing.

I could be wrong on this but that is my take on it with how the rules are outlined. I'd like to hear an official chime in on this if any are about.

Why would it still be a critical miss. . . if it hits?

For what it's worth, I agree with TheMummyBoy.

Unfortunately, we won't get any official ruling about it right now:

(in a thread about Invigorate)

Let's wait and see...

FWIW, I agree with you, too. The rulebook does specify that 2 things happen when you roll snake-eyes... you automatically miss (which Improvise overrides... if you have 3 tokens on it) and you take a click. We were discussing this on another forum, and that was the general understanding. Granted, Norm may pass down that GD had a different intent on that, but by the way it's written, that's the way I would rule it in a game.

You're actually over-generalizing it and putting "common sense" into it. It's the same reason that "Cancel" is different than "Counter", even though in a conversation outside of the game, they are considered the same.

Because "Critical Miss" is just a name... just like "Close Combat Expert" doesn't mean that they are going to hit everything in close combat. A "Critical Miss" is what it's called when you roll two 1s, but this card changes the auto-miss to a hit... it just doesn't say anything about taking the click out of it, so you will still take the click.

I must disagree on that. You are splitting a game mechanic that doesn't. In the new rulebook, when they want to make 2 game mechanic different, they make two paragraph. They separate the "Destry a blocking a blocking terrain" from the "debris markers", so that objects can be destroyed without putting debris tokens in play. see this thread for the comments of nbperp on that.
Yet, critical misses are still one mechanic. There's no distinction whatsoever between rolling two 1, automatic miss and damage from the miss. It's all the same. So, if the miss is not a miss after all, why should the character take tjhe damage ?
They tried to make everything easier to understand and more intuitive in these new rules. To be true to that spirit (and because of what I say before), I think that Improvise prevent the critical miss completly, even the damage that come from it.

For what it's worth:

Streak of Luck prevents the Crit Miss damage.

Improvise ensures you hit, but doesn't negate the CM damage.

Barring a clarification, my ruling will be that the attack hits and the attacker takes one unavoidable damage. I am 90% certain that a portion of my players will complain about it, thinking it works differently, but never asking me how I will rule it, certain in their own way that the way that they see it is the way I must see it, despite history proving them wrong on multiple occasions.
I have cards seperating the automatic hit and extra damage of a critical hit into two seperate things (like antimatter universe), so why should I believe that the automatic miss and unavoidable damage aren't seperate as well?
If I am wrong then I am wrong and won't have any problem getting rid of the unavoidable damage, but I don't always have the luxury of waiting for GD to get back to Norm.

Exactly. As judges, it's our responsibility to give a ruling based on the information we have available as best we can. If GD hasn't made a clarification yet, we have to go by our best understanding. Auto-hit while taking the damage is my best interpretation (and most of the experienced players I have discussed this with so far agree with that), and that is how I would rule it in a game until GD or Norm says otherwise.

If we're wrong, we're wrong... we're just doing our job of making the best ruling we can based on what we have. Normally, it comes down to specific letter of the wording, and that's what I'm basing it on, not interpretation of meaning.

I'll say you hit the target... You'll still take the damage from Snake Eyes

-Hypersonic90