I disagree. At the risk of entering into an teleologically ontological discussion of the merits and disingenuations of said conundrum, I would have to suggest that even if the form of impact were less than injurious the intent and willingness (or perhaps negligence and inattention) that lead to such impact would carry through the day on still totally sucking.

One might respond vis-a-vis the argument from nerfness in which one is not only struck by an arrow in such a way as no harm is caused but also with an arrow of such material that no harm is possible. In a situation of such extremity it would continue to totally suck in that one is such an oaf as to be unable to avoid impact with said trifle.

There also exists, in a post-Freudian deconstructionist interpretation of the problem statement, the theory that the arrow in question is not, per se, actually an arrow but instead a penis. In which case it could be argued that while "totally suck" might not actually happen, it is without doubt true that some person involved in the impact scenario will wish it did.