I'm probably communicating poorly. It's not that I hate math. Far from it. I think good game design requires strong math skills.

I just find that math during games makes them boring. The problem is the time it takes to do the math. In this case I'd have to look up the collision rules as well as follow a decision tree that includes lots of variables. Eliminating variables makes the rules go faster.

I'd rather see groups spending time creatively interpreting the Advantage/Threat on the dice than looking up rules. Maybe it's just me.

Nah, I see your point.

It is spelled out perhaps too deterministic, but the general idea is that these are suggestions.

• Collisions shouldn't happen every time, but I think that a failed roll with lots of threats or a despair should result in a collision, that is basically a critical roll reduced by silhouette multiplied by either 5 or 10 (I think).
  • I find that using the collision rule is more interesting and scary than just applying normal hull trauma, it can also increase survivability - even if the ship gets banged up its got less chances of going beyond its hull trauma threshold, for fighters this is at least particularly dangerous.
• The required pilot check on a success could be exchanged for the opposed roll you suggest, but I think this way its less dangerous at its basic, but the better the success, the harder it should be for the pilot.
• Using advantages to increase the difficulty to hit the defending vessel is flavour to me, it shows that even if you manage to navigate the blaster filled field, you're still having a hard time hitting (but said pilot check can improve your chances if you've got a generous and creative GM).
  • You could easily add other effects here, but I'm getting tired of my players using the same effects from the table in the book (even if they vary the narration and description), I want more stuff, different effects.
• Triumph could be used for anything, but I think its cool to let it force someone to attack (if they choose to attack that is) within the designated defensive zone... of course if they already had gained the advantage this should be determined through the narrative as opposed to the dice I think...

Anyways, your input is appreciated.

I don't disagree with any of your points. I just don't think the cost in game play is worth it.

Personally, I'd love someday to see a system that's played on tablets. The idea being that we let the computer do all the math bits at electron speed while us hunams do the social parts that make the hobby great. It'd be a lot of work to program so I'm not sure it will ever happen. Maybe when my generation gets to retirement (if ever)?

I don't think it's weird to take damage if you fail the roll. That's what falling is all about. Make the athletics or coordination check or take damage from the environment.

It isn't how the system handles damage, tho'.

Damage in both Edge and the AoR Beta is always and only done on active rolls; there are no "avoid damage" rolls I've encountered.

So, while, in overall gamerdom, it's certainly not weird, it's also not how the system does things to date.

Then you haven't encountered falling damage? There's an "avoid damage" roll there. And as mentioned, poisons... So you are mistaken.