Project: Adapting Warhammer rules for historical and Westeros purposes

[Hobgoblin]

You need to try out both methods, see which you like the best. I have played WHFB for 20 years, never really blinked an eye over the roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save (even then roll to parry, or ward save). But recently I have enjoyed both Saga and Lion Rampant which roll (respectively) just twice or once per combat. Games are a hell of a lot quicker, such that you can usually get in two games of Saga or three games of LR in the time it takes to play one game of Warhammer. Now I find the endless dice rolling a bit of a chore.

I've been following this thread with interest (and have deleted a couple of rambling responses already!). But I think that Nord's comments here are spot on. I can remember playing my first game of Hordes of the Things many years ago, after a childhood of playing Warhammer almost exclusively. It was a real "scales falling from eyes" moment: a game that could be played in an hour or two; with abundant flavour and tactics; and that delivered a much more convincing battle than Warhammer ever did. Playing Lion Rampant since has echoed that experience.

To my mind, the thing that Warhammer did well was distinguish between different fantasy races. So, while an orc was slower (I) than a human, it was also more robust (T). But its larger base size meant that fewer got into combat than an equivalent frontage of humans. Meanwhile, a hobgoblin was as tough (T) and large (base size) as an orc, but was quicker (I), though, for whatever reason, less good at shooting (BS). Also, hobgoblins were subject to Frenzy and were therefore fiercer but less reliable than orcs, and so on. And that was before you got into weapons and armour.

So, I think that if you strip out fantasy races from Warhammer, you're pretty much getting rid of its raison d'être. What Warhammer does less well, I think, than other systems, is distinguish between different (human) troop types. Oddly enough, Warhammer did make some nods to this in the first edition, in which heavy infantry were to be based on 15mm bases (though I don't think anyone ever did this). Also, I think other systems probably scale better than Warhammer. It worked best at a fairly small "large skirmish" scale - The Dolgan Raiders, Terror of the Lichemaster, etc. - but was then expanded to cover massed battles. As Nord says, other systems handle medieval-style warfare with much more grace (and, crucially, speed!).

All that said, it's a very interesting project and discussion!

[Charlie_]

I always felt that 1+ was too much, even in fantasy with plenty of high strength attacks. In a low fantasy (human only) setting where the typical S is just 3, those cavalry are going to be pretty hard to kill.

I agree, 1+ shouldn't be achievable (even if a 1 always fails).
The way I see it, there are three options (assuming a 4+ save with full plate).
1 - Shields add nothing to full plate. Leads to a max 4+ for infantry and 2+ for cavalry.
2 - No bonus for being mounted. Leads to a max 3+ for infantry and 2+ for cavalry.
3 - Abolish rules for barding (consider metal barding part of the rider's full plate). Again, leads to max 3+ for infantry and 2+ for cavalry.
I'd really love to hear thoughts on the shield + full plate debate!

And a similar subject to discuss...... close combat weapons.

WFB has rules for spears, halberds, flails, 2-handed weapons, morning stars, and lances. It used to have rules for pikes (in 3rd edition, and for Dogs of War only in 5th and 6th) but currently doesn't.
WAB omits flails and morning stars (makes sense, just treat them as hand or 2-handed weapons), but does have rules for pikes.
I propose halberds and 2-handed weapons be rolled into one, and while we are there restrict them to infantry only (no wielding 2-handed swords when mounted!)
So that leaves us with the basic hand weapon, plus spears, 2-handed weapons and pikes for infantry.... And spears and lances for cavalry.
2-handed weapons..... Warhammer gives them a +2S bonus, requires two hands, and always strikes last. Halberds in comparison are +1S, two hands, but no striking last penalty.
I suggest the whole category (which includes halberds, bills, pole-axes, two handed swords and hammers, etc) be just +1S, requires two hands, as per warhammer halberds. Or, if you prefer, +1S, cannot use shield in combat. I think +2S is too much, and the striking last rule is an unnecessary (and perhaps unrealistic) complication.
So your infantry and can either hand hand weapons and shields, and get extra protection, or 2-handed weapons, and get less protection but hit harder. Simple!
Anyway, the difference between a halberd and a pole-axe is not that great!
Spears, I like them as they are (an extra rank fighting, unless the unit charged that turn).
Pikes..... WFB made them 'super-spears', fighting in 4 ranks. WAB has them in just 2 ranks like spears, but lets them always strike first. I quite like the WAB route, the always strike first makes a lot of sense. There should be (and will be) other finer rules to do with pikes and manouvering, formations, flank and rear attacks, etc.... But for the core rules, I think they should be always strike first, fight in an extra rank. Maybe 2 or even 3 extra ranks? Or does that make them too overpowered? Perhaps they deserve to be super effective when receiving a frontal charge? I guess that can all be decided with playtesting.
Lances.... Warhammer gives them a +2S bonus when charging, whereas cavalry with just spears get a +1S.
Like I've done with 2-handed weapons and halberds, perhaps I should roll them both into one and keep the bonus at +1? Elite heavy cavalry might well have S4 anyway, which leads to S5 on the charge....
I mean, in a massed battle situation, is being charged by heavy cavalry with lances really gonna be that much more devastating than being charged by the same heavy cavalry with swords, axes and hammers? I'd love to hear thoughts!

I think streamlining the combat weapon rules like so would be a good thing. Pikes will always be a special case requiring more rules, as their effectiveness is so circumstantial (they should be very effective when receiving a frontal charge, but a pike unit is limited in how it can move, and if the enemy hits them anywhere other than the front they are suddenly useless).

I've been following this thread with interest (and have deleted a couple of rambling responses already!).

As I've said before (or perhaps haven't, so sorry if this hasn't been clear!) I'm just trying to streamline / simplify the Warhammer system to be used for historical / low-fatasy (ie ASOIAF) medieval settings, or make the best of it without completely abandoning it. If in the end it becomes clear that other systems are better, so be it! I will then have two options to choose from, my Warhammer edition or alternatives.  But I'm not gonna simply abandon Warhammer just because other systems that may be better / easier / simpler are out there.
Welcome to the discussion, please feel free to weigh in with your thoughts about the details of the Warhammer system and how it can be tweaked!

[Captain Blood]

Well, this is a proper wargaming discussion

Still following with interest.

[Hobgoblin]

And a similar subject to discuss...... close combat weapons.

WFB has rules for spears, halberds, flails, 2-handed weapons, morning stars, and lances. It used to have rules for pikes (in 3rd edition, and for Dogs of War only in 5th and 6th) but currently doesn't.
WAB omits flails and morning stars (makes sense, just treat them as hand or 2-handed weapons), but does have rules for pikes.
I propose halberds and 2-handed weapons be rolled into one, and while we are there restrict them to infantry only (no wielding 2-handed swords when mounted!)
So that leaves us with the basic hand weapon, plus spears, 2-handed weapons and pikes for infantry.... And spears and lances for cavalry.
2-handed weapons..... Warhammer gives them a +2S bonus, requires two hands, and always strikes last. Halberds in comparison are +1S, two hands, but no striking last penalty.
I suggest the whole category (which includes halberds, bills, pole-axes, two handed swords and hammers, etc) be just +1S, requires two hands, as per warhammer halberds. Or, if you prefer, +1S, cannot use shield in combat. I think +2S is too much, and the striking last rule is an unnecessary (and perhaps unrealistic) complication.
So your infantry and can either hand hand weapons and shields, and get extra protection, or 2-handed weapons, and get less protection but hit harder. Simple!

That all makes sense. I think the slowness of two-handed weapons in Warhammer was an RPG hangover (cramped dungeons or whatever).

Anyway, the difference between a halberd and a pole-axe is not that great!

That's very true. One thought though: if you wanted to distinguish between knightly poleaxes and the polearms of the lower orders, you could make a distinction. You could keep the +2S for poleaxes, two-handed swords and so on, and have halberds as +1S but with the option of acting as spears instead (when threatened by cavalry, for example, and perhaps just for an initial round). That might serve to distinguish between billmen (or halberdiers) on the one hand, and foot knights on the other. And it would up the destructive power of the knights, which might fit quite well with the ASOIAF setting and echo the +2 bonus for lances.

Spears, I like them as they are (an extra rank fighting, unless the unit charged that turn).
Pikes..... WFB made them 'super-spears', fighting in 4 ranks. WAB has them in just 2 ranks like spears, but lets them always strike first. I quite like the WAB route, the always strike first makes a lot of sense. There should be (and will be) other finer rules to do with pikes and manouvering, formations, flank and rear attacks, etc.... But for the core rules, I think they should be always strike first, fight in an extra rank. Maybe 2 or even 3 extra ranks? Or does that make them too overpowered? Perhaps they deserve to be super effective when receiving a frontal charge? I guess that can all be decided with play testing.

For historical purposes, I think pikes should be "super-spears"; they pretty much usurped the shorter spear's battlefield role in the West. ASOIAF effectively pits different epochs against each other, so the more advanced battlefield technology should have an edge.

Lances.... Warhammer gives them a +2S bonus when charging, whereas cavalry with just spears get a +1S.
Like I've done with 2-handed weapons and halberds, perhaps I should roll them both into one and keep the bonus at +1? Elite heavy cavalry might well have S4 anyway, which leads to S5 on the charge....
I mean, in a massed battle situation, is being charged by heavy cavalry with lances really gonna be that much more devastating than being charged by the same heavy cavalry with swords, axes and hammers? I'd love to hear thoughts!

I think the lance should be something special; it maximises the impact of a heavy cavalry charge. It was the dominant heavy-calvary weapon for centuries because is worked. Also, in a Westerosi setting, anything that sets knights a cut above other troops is probably good. And if you allow the extra benefits of lances and pikes, you get a pleasing "problem and solution" balance.

As I've said before (or perhaps haven't, so sorry if this hasn't been clear!) I'm just trying to streamline / simplify the Warhammer system to be used for historical / low-fatasy (ie ASOIAF) medieval settings, or make the best of it without completely abandoning it. If in the end it becomes clear that other systems are better, so be it! I will then have two options to choose from, my Warhammer edition or alternatives.  But I'm not gonna simply abandon Warhammer just because other systems that may be better / easier / simpler are out there.
Welcome to the discussion, please feel free to weigh in with your thoughts about the details of the Warhammer system and how it can be tweaked!

No, you were quite clear!   I suppose my point is that it's worth looking beyond Warhammer to see how that game could be improved. But, as with the ship of Theseus, if you replace each plank ...

So what does work well with Warhammer? Well, I think that the different base sizes for humanoid infantry are a good start. For example, I'd be tempted to put Wildlings on 25mm bases (like old-school hobgoblins!) to simulate a looser fighting style. That way, your Baratheon infantry (or whatever) will have an edge even if the Wildlings are individually better fighters. You might do the same with Dothraki infantry. In a way, this is just using the original Warhammer rule about 15mm bases for heavy infantry, but updating it to fit with contemporary miniature sizes. Many suitably barbaric-looking 28mm miniatures will probably be more comfortable on 25mm bases anyway.

[Major_Gilbear]

Well, some good points raised so far!

A few more thoughts of my own:

Two-handed weapons. Different weapons exist with different profiles, mostly to add flavour; in mass-battle terms, I doubt there is any huge difference between certain specific weapons types.

Great weapons are a way of allowing models with low strength to have a better chance of hurting models with high toughness and/or a good armour save. That they always strike last is a balancing factor - it doesn't really matter on some troops (low initiative will see them strike at the end anyway) but does matter more on others (elite troops, who may have a high WS and I). Halberds are a compromise, gaining a lower bonus but at no penalty. And so on.

Similarly, weapons like pikes, spears, and lances probably ought to give an initiative bonus in the first round of combat (reflecting their superior reach), and probably get a damage bonus on the charge if wielded by or used against cavalry (again, a first turn-only bonus).

Another thing about your comments on cavalry charges and spear/lance strength bonuses - cavalry sometimes charges cavalry. If they are well-armoured, that first-turn punch is a good way of ensuring you do some "shock" damage before the handweapons come out in subsequent turns (and it becomes a back-and-forth slugfest of "who fails more 3+ armour saves").

If you are keeping the bulk of the rules the same, and if you are restricting yourself to human armies with little statistical variation between them, perhaps keeping the weapons' more complex rules might be a wise way of keeping some player choice in the game.

I also get the strong feeling that you should probably play a few games of WHFB using blocks of troops with regular weapons to get a better feel for what you're gaining/losing with all these changes (many of which I'm increasingly thinking are just unnecessary).

I would also strongly suggest you try Kings of War, which accomplishes *precisely* what I think you're trying to do here. As for weapons, etc - in KoW you have a block of troops with a profile that already takes into account a variety of factors including equipment. If you want to represent a specific unit that has some distinctive characteristic (due to training, weapons, or skills) then it's easy to simply adjust the troop profile accordingly. It also makes army lists easy, since it doesn't require players to calculate every individual model's exact loadout and points value.

[Charlie_]

One thought though: if you wanted to distinguish between knightly poleaxes and the polearms of the lower orders, you could make a distinction. You could keep the +2S for poleaxes, two-handed swords and so on, and have halberds as +1S but with the option of acting as spears instead (when threatened by cavalry, for example, and perhaps just for an initial round). That might serve to distinguish between billmen (or halberdiers) on the one hand, and foot knights on the other. And it would up the destructive power of the knights, which might fit quite well with the ASOIAF setting and echo the +2 bonus for lances.

I think the lance should be something special; it maximises the impact of a heavy cavalry charge. It was the dominant heavy-calvary weapon for centuries because is worked. Also, in a Westerosi setting, anything that sets knights a cut above other troops is probably good. And if you allow the extra benefits of lances and pikes, you get a pleasing "problem and solution" balance.

So what does work well with Warhammer? Well, I think that the different base sizes for humanoid infantry are a good start. For example, I'd be tempted to put Wildlings on 25mm bases (like old-school hobgoblins!) to simulate a looser fighting style. That way, your Baratheon infantry (or whatever) will have an edge even if the Wildlings are individually better fighters. You might do the same with Dothraki infantry. In a way, this is just using the original Warhammer rule about 15mm bases for heavy infantry, but updating it to fit with contemporary miniature sizes. Many suitably barbaric-looking 28mm miniatures will probably be more comfortable on 25mm bases anyway.

The thing is, in regards to weapons....
I think the look of a unit of troops with mixed weapons is good. I can't imagine all the infantry with regulation poleaxes would gather in one group, the ones with halberds in another, and the sword-and-shield guys in another, right? Though obviously I'd never suggest that each model in a ranked unit be armed differently.
I think giving all forms of polearms and 2-handed weapons the same rules helps encourage the mixed-weapon look.
And in regards to knights having better weapons than 'lowly' bills... I think their (presumeably) better stats should do the job.
Example - Imagine you have two blocks of 20 infantry, both with quite a diverse mix of weapons. But just upon glancing a them, you can see that one is supposed to be the elite knightly type, and the other the 'lowly footman' type. The former has heavier armour, the latter has less. The former is equipped with a variety of 2-handed swords, axes, hammers, etc, whilst the latter has mostly bills, with some spears, halberds and poleaxes here and there. The latter also has a few more heavily armoured models in it as well, but overall there is less metal and more cloth.
In terms of weapon rules, they both have the same - 2-handed weapons.
But just by looking at them it's clear who is harder, and this is easily represented by the knights having better armour and better stats (at least higher WS, maybe higher S and LD as well).

Your idea for polearms is a nice one though, allowing them to act either as 2-handed weapons or spears. It's worth considering. But it maybe gives them an obvious advantage over the 'knightly' weapons (ie flexibility).
I think a simpler, but similar solution is when it comes to polearms, have the player make clear whether the unit is equipped with spears or 2-handed weapons - if the models are all armed with English bills, they should definitely be allowed to 'count as' spears. Simple.
If I see my opponent fielding a unit of billmen, I will politely ask "spears or 2-handed?"


Your idea for 25mm bases is indeed a very interesting one, which I had no considered. It gives such troops a definite disadvantage. I will consider it!!!

Similarly, weapons like pikes, spears, and lances probably ought to give an initiative bonus in the first round of combat (reflecting their superior reach), and probably get a damage bonus on the charge if wielded by or used against cavalry (again, a first turn-only bonus).

I would also strongly suggest you try Kings of War, which accomplishes *precisely* what I think you're trying to do here. As for weapons, etc - in KoW you have a block of troops with a profile that already takes into account a variety of factors including equipment. If you want to represent a specific unit that has some distinctive characteristic (due to training, weapons, or skills) then it's easy to simply adjust the troop profile accordingly. It also makes army lists easy, since it doesn't require players to calculate every individual model's exact loadout and points value.

Spears initiative bonus - it's something I've considered, but am put off by adding an extra special rule to such a simple weapon.
Having said that though, I am giving pikes such rules. I think pikes should get a +1S bonus against charging cavalry, and the strikes first bonus (perhaps until they lose a round of combat, representing the enemy pushing past the pikes en masse).

You mention "it doesn't require players to calculate every individual model's exact loadout and points value"... But I love that!!! Deciding whether to upgrade a unit's armour for an extra point per model, deciding between spears or halberds, seeing if I've got enough points to give that unit shields.... Customising an army in detail is one of the things I like about the Warhammer points system. Let me get this straight, I enjoy a lot of the fiddly details in Warhammer, especially when it comes to army selection.

Going back to armour, I'm thinking the simplest thing to do is to get rid of warhorse barding. So we have the three levels of armour, 6+, 5+ and 4+. Being mounted adds one. Shields add one. Maximum save for infantry is 3+, for cavalry it is 2+. Consider warhorse barding just part of the armour upgrade you are getting for the rider.

[Major_Gilbear]

Well, I don't know if it's the time of night or what, but I'm slightly confused now... Why are you streamlining armour rules and fiddling with weapons, when the ones in the game are (1) already present (2) familiar to players (3) designed with the game mechanics in mind. If you like the fiddly detail, and have already cut out most of the obvious fantasy elements, what's left to do besides play?! 

[Charlie_]

Well, perhaps we should look at it this way...
If I'm gonna play using either WFB or WAB rules, I will make some changes / house rules for sure either way. Consider this me putting together lots of house rules for how I'm gonna be playing it, which I will write up and consider 'my edition'!

Perhaps weapons and armour aren't the best place to start in terms of changes, being admittedly concerned with just little details. Perhaps instead I should offer my thoughts on movement/formations/terrain and army selection?

[Major_Gilbear]

I feel that army selection (i.e., write your own army lists) is probably going to account for 90% of any real modification you will need.
Most of the the other discussed elements that you are adding/removing/changing will likely be addressed by this alone (i.e., what weapons, what armour, what troops, what statlines, any unit-specific rules or not, etc) simply because pretty much everything in the game beyond basic mechanics requires permission from the army list to use.

For example, if your list doesn't permit any models that have access to magic, then there is no magic for that force. Same for monsters, mighty heroes, esoteric weapons, etc. Limiting unit sizes or imposing minimum sizes/unit ratios is something else you can do.

After that, I'd probably play-test it and see how you get on. You might find a number of the things that you wanted to change have been taken care of simply because they no longer come up in games.

Anyway, apologies if I come across as rude or awkward in my comments here (definitely not my intention!) - I just think that focusing on the things you don't like rather than on why they are there in the first place is making a rules adaptation unnecessarily convoluted.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication".

[Charlie_]

I feel that army selection (i.e., write your own army lists) is probably going to account for 90% of any real modification you will need.

That is very true!!!!
I've been working on not so much an army list, but a 'unit generating' format. So starting at base human stats at 5pts per model, with points for equipment upgrades and (limited) stat boosts, plus a few select special rules that can be purchased.
The idea is you can use this to create any infantry or cavalry unit you want, though obviously there are recommended guidelines (no silly things like archers in full plate).
The less special rules, the easier this should be to do and keep balanced.
I have then put together a generic medieval army list using this format, which should cover rules, stats and equipment for all medieval unit types, plus upgrades.
I've put some special thought into the creation of characters. Obviously what makes characters unique is access to even higher stats if you pay for them (most notably W and A over 1), and the all-important LD bonus, which costs much more for characters as other units can benefit from it. Still, if you buy NO upgrades for a character he still costs just 5 points, as he is has no benefit over any other soldier!
This allows creation of not only generals and leaders but cheap, customised unit champions and heroes if you want. I'm not gonna both with the 'unit champion' upgrade (or command groups at all, but we can discuss that later!). But you can still make these mini-heroes if you want. For example, let's say a halberdier with standard equipment costs 9 points. You can purchase an extra attack (10pts) and +1WS (1pt) for a leader figure, making him cost 20 points. If you choose to give him an extra point of leadership (20pts) he will now cost a pricey 40 points, because his increased LD will benefit the whole unit greatly. You have freedom to equip him differently if you want. Just a rough example, obviously points values are in no way set in stone.

_______________________________

Anyway, let's have a look at some of the ideas I've had for movement, formations and terrain.

As it's just humans and horses right now, we can assume all infantry have a movement value of 4 and most cavalry a movement value of 8.
(Heavy cavalry should be reduced to 7, either due to barding or just having an armour save over a certain threshold (say 3+ or more), but that ties in with the armour issues I was pondering earlier. I don't think infantry being slowed down by heavy armour is really necessary.)

In Warhammer, 'skirmishers' are a special sort of troop with a host of special rules. In modern WFB only infantry can skirmish, but cavalry get their own special set of 'fast cavalry' rules for similar roles.

I suggest any unit can skirmish if it wants, unless they have an armour save over a certain threshold, and we rename it open formation. Units ranked up are in close formation. Open formation units move like skirmishers in older editions of WFB (not like in 8th edition), all staying within 2" of the group but moving as individual models. This includes cavalry. Obviously this gives them movement advantages, especially where terrain is involved (see below). So rather than having confusing layers of rules (in WAB we actually have 'close order formed', 'open order formed', 'light units' and 'skirmishers'!), you just choose with each unit whether it's in open or close formation. Obviously some units are much better suited to one or the other depending on their role, and close formation can be a real hindrance on a battlefield with lots of rough terrain. To underline the fact that close formation is best for blocks of combat troops, open formation should have a rank bonus limit (I suggest it can get one, but never more than +1).

A unit can switch between one and the other with a full reform move, though it should require a successful LD test.

Both types of unit can make a special 'double move' (with a few circumstances not allowing it, like being too close to the enemy). For open formation it is called 'run', for close formation it is 'march'. Units cannot shoot if they run/march.

Fast cavalry rules are not needed, as all the movement benefits are included simply through being in close formation.
A few special rules could be purchased though, most notably 'horse archers' (lets them shoot with bows after making a full run move).

In both WFB and WAB the movement penalties of terrain and changing formation are a bit too messy for me, especially when combined with marching (and back in 3rd edition, the reserve move). Models are reduced to half rate, and cannot march, in terrain... what does that leave, a move of 2"? You might as well give up!

My idea is to simplify the penalties to limiting whether the unit can make a march/run move or not. No more halving and quartering the movement statistic, no more half inches. Though this may well have the same end result, I think stating the rules like this simply make things easier. Troops with the 'skirmishers' rule added another layer of complication in warhammer (and 'light troops' in WAB).

How about this......

Open terrain - No penalty obviously. All units can move or march/run.
Difficult terrain - No penalty if in open formation, can still run. If in close formation, cannot march (so just move at base rate).
Very difficult terrain - Open formation units can move, but not run (so move at base rate). Close formation units cannot move at all.
Impassable terrain - Obviously no one can move through it.
Linear obstacles (low walls etc) - No penalty for open formation, can still run. Close formation units can move over, but they cannot march.

When it comes to reforming in close formation, most reforms require a successful LD test. A complete reform means they cannot move or shoot. Certain smaller reforms mean they can move but not march, or maybe they can only subsequently move if they pass a LD test. Makes the LD stat important for moving blocks of troops around the battlefield.


What is the end result of these changes gonna be? Well it won't be that much different, but I see it as a definite streamlining of the rules.
Battlefield movement all comes down to open or close formation, and in what circumstances units can march/run or not. Which of the two formations your units adopt is the question, which in some circumstances is a no-brainer, whilst in others it's a bit trickier.

[Charlie_]

-double post

[Charlie_]

-triple post!

[Nord]

Personally speaking, movement is the one phase of the game that should be so simple. And yet terrain should matter. I like the Saga system. If a unit starts, ends or passes through terrain, it's whole move is reduced. In simple terms, touch terrain in the move phase and your unit move is halved. Very abstract yes, very simple yes, but very easy to remember and allows the game to move on. No defining terrain as area, linear, etc. Skirmishers ignore this rule. It needs a tweak if you are going to go with open order/closed order.

I would be wary of introducing an extra layer of open order/closed order. What purpose does it serve? It seems counter intuitive to your stated aim to simplify and streamline Warhammer rules. So I wonder why you are doing it?

[Charlie_]

I would be wary of introducing an extra layer of open order/closed order. What purpose does it serve? It seems counter intuitive to your stated aim to simplify and streamline Warhammer rules. So I wonder why you are doing it?

You misunderstand, I'm not adding an extra layer. Open order is in all respects 'skirmishing' as you know it. I'm just freeing it up, making it accessible to more units and not a special rule for specific troops. I've just changed the name to be more appropriate for covering a broad range of troop types.

'Skirmishers' as we know them would just be small units of troops equipped suitably for the role, who would obviously always be in open formation.

[Nord]

Okay. So a unit can be ranked or in skirmish, requiring a ld test to change from one to the other. I don't really see the benefit of this, and the drawback is lots of faffing around changing from one to the other. Obviously, you will move at all times in skirmish mode to avoid move penalties. I assume ranked mode gives some combat benefit, so units will want to change into that to fight. Move in skirmish, fight ranked, what are the tricky decisions you refer to? I'm still not seeing where you are going with this. Units being able to chop and change like this, it's not working for me. I prefer some units to have special roles, makes them distinct. And I would rate skirmishing as one of those special roles.