Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Given the smaller scope of many skirmish games, does the idea of having mounts add anything interesting to the mix? It can be cool to field a gang of bikers or perhaps some raiders on 6-legged lizards. But with all these guys speeding around the battlefield, what does that potentially do to a game on a 2x2 or 3x3 table?

I know this can depend on the specific rules, but I am curious about general thoughts on whether they even belong in the skirmish world.

Yes, mounts should be included if they're appropriate to the setting. A 2x2 table is enough space for them to function, and they can have an appropriate cost to reflect the "be anywhere on the table" factor of their speed advantage. And remember that flat out forward speed is not combat speed in difficult terrain. If you're really concerned about mobility make the upper end of bikes/cavalry only available as a straight-line move on open ground without shooting, with turns and movement through terrain limiting the model to a more modest speed advantage over infantry. If infantry move 6", cavalry move 9", and cavalry on open ground sprint 18" you've added the thematic element of cavalry without creating a unit type that goes beyond the scope of what a point system can accommodate.