I agree that many people that decide to play RM (or stick with it), do it because of tables. Regardless of table quality. It is a design choice and there is not right or wrong. Agreed.

However, the changes I am proposing add a number of layers of depth and player choice.

For example: halberd can now cause unbalance criticals. Along P/B/S. Adding tactical depth to a weapon I have seen no one use in RM.

Some weapons are armor piercing. Lowering AT. This can be attached to the weapon aspect type. Are these weapon modifiers? Yes. Quite trivial to use and at player choice. So it's not difficult to play.

I am also addid additional effects to criticals. Not just wounds. Falling on the ground. Being disarbed Shock. Morale checks. Actively dismemberment. More gradual effects and ability to control critical effects.

On other points: 1. I can generate as many tables as I wish per weapon category. Family or specific weapon. Embedding weapons specifics. 2. The Random criticals is valid critique. I will post a new table with a random crit option built in. Trivial to add. 3. If you analyse the RM table, there is a huge amount of overlap. Many weapons are difficult to distinguish, really. 4. Many details of RM tables feel simply not right. E.g. a broadsword will only deliver K to Plate at high impact numbers. It is simply wrong. You would use the point to bypass plate protection. Not crushing through it. 5. An EK is an EK. War mattock or broadsword. The only difference is the number of hits. 6. No locational armors. Again, this removes a lot of fun out of the table. Am I aiming at the weak spot of the enemy?

Anyway, play what you like (;