Discussion: is mass ranked combat the right format for the Warhammer Fantasy ruleset?

Controversial, I know.
In this post I will ramble about the pros and cons of the current (and gone before!) popular rulesets that we can use with our Warhammer miniatures, and how well they serve the format they attempt to recreate on the table. Its long, internet, brace yourselves. I slipped in a few pretty pictures just for you.
This has come in the wake of the (official) end of Warhammer 8th edition, where people have been discussing moving on to other systems. And engaging in that debate has made me realize why I like the Warhammer/Mordheim game engine, and exactly what are the things it excels at.

Lets start by presenting some of the current most accessible alternatives:

Warhammer: Age of Sigmar

- Good support for single-model skirmish or squad-based combat (smooth transition);
- Freeform movement system well adapted for units to explore intricate terrain (emphasis on model-by-model movement);
- Limited scalability (large number of models more difficult to manage)
- Very good simulationism in melee weapons characteristics (spears have extra reach) but very bad on artillery (hit too often, deal too little damage, friendly fire absent) and missile weapons (simplified rules grants shooting a lot of power and flexibility with few penalties). Very good also on monsters that become less capable as they take more wounds;

- Very simplified psychology, with casualties triggering a 'crumble test', units never break (they stand to the last);
- Less emphasis on simulationism in favour of gamist framework: ability to hit and wound dependent on attacker only, defense save (which is never very high) and Wounds count dependent on defender; unit activation in combat works in turns (across the whole table), not by unit initiative;

-------------------------------------------------

Kings of War

- Specifically designed for large ranked units, unit have fixed sizes whose stats increase with size;
- Simplified movement rules (pivoting, moving through units or obstacles) avoids most common problems of pathfinding with large units through terrain;
- More abstraction with simplified unit statistics, weapon characteristics much glossed over, units only attack on their own turn; 

- Still has some simulationist coherence: moving perturbs shooting, cannons have a single shot that misses often but deals heavy damage, etc. friendly fire is absent however;

- Very simplified psychology, with casualties triggering a break test
- Simplified unit damage system, disconnected from actual casualties(models dont need to be removed), which feeds into how easy it is to break a unit. Number of attacks a unit makes is independent from its damage suffered, unless it's wavering (semi-breaking).

-----------------------------------------------------

So we have two games that have emphasized rules simplification and abstraction, but have gone in opposite directions in format: AoS for squad-based combat, KoW for mass ranks. 

So what does Warhammer 8th give us?

Warhammer 8th Ed

-Well-detailed simulation of model statistics (WS, BS, Strength, Toughness, Initiative) and resolution of contests between models (To Hit, To Wound tables), model characteristics also determine attacking order;

- Good simulationism in different weapon and armor abilities, and in artillery behaviour (ballistas and cannonballs penetrating ranks, off-target shots and friendly fire);

- Cumbersome movement rules make terrain undesirable and maneuvering can be a chore;

- Well fleshed-out psychology, with fear, break and panic tests, as well as musician-coordinated reforming;
(EDIT)- Cinematic and narrative details: challenges in combat, Greenskin animosity, undead crumble when master dies, fleeing and panicking units trigger further panic and chaos, etc.

-------------------------------------------------------

So in summary, Warhammer 8th Ed tried to achieve what KoW is aiming for, but its rules are too detailed. It gives you all the grittyness of friendly fire, mishaps, crazy explosions and simulations weapon combat very well... (which I love). But its just too much to resolve fast enough for a game of that scale, sometimes.

Take a walk through memory lane and Rulebooks of editions past and you will actually read that a single physical rank and file model was meant to represent several tens of warriors... which would make the game not actually to scale...this explanation has since been discontinued to preserve verosimilitude and coherence, I believe...
In addition, there was a mass-ranked battle game by GW:

Warmaster.

Warmaster was meant to represent massive battles where the Character's powers were more tied to their ability to lead their troops better and prevent them from screwing their orders up. Most of the popular troops from Warhammer Fantasy were represented (so it still felt very Warhammer), in 10mm scale. Rules for movement ans shooting looked quite realistic, and still reminiscent of Warhammer.
You could field appreciable numbers of troops, and make for a much more realistic mass battle game.

Somehow, Warmaster didn't stick with the larger public (maybe because the larger 28mm miniatures just look better), although there are many die-hards out there for which it works beautifully (because it does!). However, we (the larger public) kept insisting on playing a mass ranked battle game with the Warhammer ruleset. Maybe at some point it had to give, and that point was now.
-------------------------------------


I do believe that going for a squad-based tactical combat (with optional increase in numbers for larger games) was indeed a good idea for 28mm miniatures, and Warhammer: Age of Sigmar. However, that same idea could have easily been applied to Warhammer 8th Edition (or a 9th edition incarnation, which people were expecting). And it had already been done back in 6-7th edition, with Warhammer: Warbands.

Warhammer Fantasy: Warbands

This could've been the trend-setter that might have saved and boosted the Warhammer Fantasy game. At its minimum, it was a simple add-on to the Core game that scaled down minimum models per unit. This allowed for faster games, with more complex "secret" scenario objectives.
At its best, the campaign system it came with, together with Hero Archetype abilities, allowed very easily to turn it into a Warhammer version of the Experience and Injuries system that Mordheim uses, injecting loads of narrative into the game (and possibly capturing the attention of more RPG-oriented players that would otherwise not have touched it).
It goes without saying that if this version of the game had been properly promoted by GW, the infamous "barrier of entry" to the hobby, of having to buy dozens of models to even play a small game, would have evaporated. They would've picked up many short-term customers (who would buy a couple boxes and lose interest), but also get many more hooked on the game (because once you are in, you want to keep buying more and more...).

But alas, it was not supported as an official Core game "mode" going on to 7th and 8th Edition (together with Warhammer: Skirmish), and newer players (in the last ~5 years) never heard of any of it. Definitely a missed opportunity.
Cue endless squabble over what is "proper" and "real" Warhammer, over the edition wars, and arguments between "small tactical units are better, its more strategic" and "we want massive ranked units, that's the beauty of the game". And I hazard a guess that it was that rift that tore players between editions and made so many people drop such a beloved game over the years. It tried to do too many things, and the ruleset, which at the point of 8th Edition had been honed to a robust machine with (mostly) clear rules, struggled to keep the game chugging along at a pace the majority of people enjoyed.
----------------------------------------------------------

Finally, it is not at all a stretch to imagine that you could apply the movement rules present in AoS straight onto the rules for Warbands, and thus marry two great concepts together. Without having to reinvent the wheel and coming up with the revamped AoS system.
That movement flexibility would've boosted the ease of play of the Warbands/Warhammer format, and used all the great simulationism of the Warhammer rules, but because it needs less models the game would flow faster (therefore mitigating the time-consuming, over-detail problem of very simulationist rulesets). Intricate scenery could be explored, and many acts of derring-do performed by the Heroes of the warband, placing all due attention and spotlight on those beautiful centerpiece models.

I am currently in the process of testing this, by playing Warhammer: Warbands with the Freeform Movement rules I put together recently (a Warhammer 8th Ed. version of AoS movement rules).

Stay tuned for playtesting reports.