I would also say that this does not work.

You can't "nimbly dodge" something when you're either totally unaware of it or otherwise incapacitated.
I think it is most likely that the rules writers are just assuming any reader understands what dodging is.

What I find disappointing is that the writers didn't seemingly think to consider or mention unexpected attacks.

As a referee you are the interface with the make believe world - the story teller. More immersive games are usually more enjoyable. The more "suspension of disbelief" the players are required to apply in order to play the game the less they are likely to enjoy the experience.
If you stress over wordage then you'll also just end up tying yourself in knots. The story is the aim. Focus on that.

The idea is that the referee takes the rules and interprets them. The "rules" are lore not law. They're more loose description than hard and fast laws, where deep meaning can be squeezed out of the words.

I would also say that this does not work.

You can't "nimbly dodge" something when you're incapacitated or totally unaware of that thing you're trying to dodge.
I seems most likely the rules writers assumed any reader understands what dodging is.

If you go for the "RAW" and decide no mention means it works then this is likely to risk damaging believability.
Your players may just shrug and move on.
On the other hand, one seemingly innocuous but (apparently) illogical interpretation can open the door for many future questions. In my experience these can end up with a focus on how-are-the-rules-supposed-to-work questions rather than storyline.

What I find disappointing is that the writers didn't seemingly think to consider or mention unexpected attacks.

As a referee you are the interface with the make believe world - the story teller. More immersive games are usually more enjoyable. The more "suspension of disbelief" the players are required to apply in order to play the game the less they are likely to enjoy the experience.
If you stress over wordage then you'll also just end up tying yourself in knots. The story is the aim. Focus on that.

The idea is that the referee takes the rules and interprets them. The "rules" are lore not law. They're more loose description than hard and fast laws, where deep meaning can be squeezed out of the words.

I would also say that this does not work.

You can't "nimbly dodge" something you're totally unaware of or when incapacitated.
I think it most likely the rules writers are just assuming any reader understands what dodging is.

What I find disappointing is the writers didn't think to consider or mention unexpected attacks.

As a referee you are the interface with the make believe world - the story teller. More immersive games are usually more enjoyable. The more "suspension of disbelief" the players are required to apply in order to play the game the less they are likely to enjoy the experience.
If you stress over wordage then you'll also just end up tying yourself up in knots. The story is the aim. Focus on that.

The idea is that the referee takes the rules and interprets them. The "rules" are lore not law. They're more loose description than hard and fast laws where deep meaning can be squeezed out the words.

I would also say that this does not work.

You can't "nimbly dodge" something when you're either totally unaware of it or otherwise incapacitated.
I think it is most likely that the rules writers are just assuming any reader understands what dodging is.

What I find disappointing is that the writers didn't seemingly think to consider or mention unexpected attacks.

As a referee you are the interface with the make believe world - the story teller. More immersive games are usually more enjoyable. The more "suspension of disbelief" the players are required to apply in order to play the game the less they are likely to enjoy the experience.
If you stress over wordage then you'll also just end up tying yourself in knots. The story is the aim. Focus on that.

The idea is that the referee takes the rules and interprets them. The "rules" are lore not law. They're more loose description than hard and fast laws, where deep meaning can be squeezed out of the words.