Every now and again, I run into threads and conversations regarding differences between playing the game on the tabletop and playing it on the computer. This topic mainly manifests by someone mentioning that the computer adaptation should be more like the tabletop, meaning that it should not indicate the target rolls for certain actions.

My own position in this matter is quite simple: I compare this display of a target equivalent to picking up the rulebook prior to rolling the dice. While it's not explicitly stated anywhere in the rules (at least as far as I have seen), it's allowed to declare an action and then simply not perform it should you choose to do so.

For example, let's say you declare a blitz action. You move your player into position and the client tells you it's two dice against (you didn't remember that the player have ST4) rather than the one-die block you were expecting. I figure that even if you don't perform the actual block at the end of the Blitz action, you still used up your blitz action for the turn. However, it's not cheating or against the rules to do this implicit rules lookup before each and every dice roll you do.

Of course, playing on the computer will normally allow you to declare an action only to change your mind and deselect the player. While you could argue that this is against the rules, and that the player should lose his action if this was done on the tabletop, I figure that this is mainly a difference of whether you consider the action to start when you declare the action (ie, touch the model) and when you start moving (or roll a die). The current client(s) use the latter interpretation, where you can cancel the action until you have either moved the player or rolled a die.

This topic also comes up when it comes to movement. SkiJunkie's client forces you to pick each and every square of movement on your own, while Kalimar's version allows you to point at your target destination and (barring any dice rolls being required to get there) will allow you to click once to get there. Some people argue that this is dumbing down the game and that figuring out movement paths is part of the tactics, while others (myself included; after all, I provided Kalimar with the path finding code) think that the process of finding a clear path to a target square isn't really that much of a deal. When I play on the tabletop, I tend to tell my opponent that they need to dodge from a certain square and happily let them rethink the move for the player.

To me, it's more fun to play the game when the outcome depends on strategy, tactics and relevant dice rolls than calling my opponent to force unnecessary dice rolls because of an oversight. Yes, I also remind my opponent to move their turn marker rather than calling an illegal procedure. Speaking of which, the turn marker is something that is not a factor in the computer clients. To me, the illegal procedure rule is there mostly to make sure that the turns are counted correctly rather than making any tactical difference. So this is an aspect which I happily feel that the computer should do for you.

I am actually a bit more liberal with what I feel the computer could do for you than what the current clients are. For example, I wouldn't mind having the pathfinder showing the highest probability path to a certain target square, even including dodge and go-for-it rolls. However, that's something that I figure won't happen any time soon because of the number of fairly conservative players in the community. Maybe I should venture into the process of creating an AI for the game to see how far I could take things :)