Or use Composure to lie/bluff, and Insight to read a person.

That's pretty similar to Dungeon World's compendium classes. When a certain fictional trigger is met, the player can choose an "entry move" for the CC the next time they Level Up (advance). After that, they can choose moves from their CC in place of core class moves.

It's not quite the same as what you're proposing, but it fills a similar purpose.

Mostly: what others have said.

Also: I find that it's really help to write out the special qualities and moves of my monsters in a way that makes them fictionally dangerous and that changes the nature of the fight.  Like, don't just rely on the monster's hit points or armor to make it tough. Give it moves like "ignore all but the most well-placed blows" or qualities like "can only be killed by a blessed crossbow bolt" (hello, rakshasa).   Don't just give you vampire a move like "drain blood from it's victims;" go big with something like "Drain the blood, life, or free-will from its victims."

With that in mind, here's my take on your badass ancient vampire lord: http://codex.dungeon-world.com/monster/629012

If the party doesn't make an execute and flawless plan, they're not going to get the drop on this thing. If the don't have the drop on it, it can easily escape just about anything (by clouding minds, turning into mist, or moving with impossible speed), turn the PCs against it each other (by clouding minds or draining free will), or simply beat them into a pulp.

It's not always necessary to write out moves and qualities so aggressively; once you're more comfortable with how fictional details can influence a DW encounter, you'll probably just be able to "wing it" with a good sense of what a creature should or should not be able to do. Personally, though, I find "statting up" a badass monster with game-changing qualities and moves gives me a sense of freedom to play them with integreity, hard and mean. I don't know that I'd feel that same freedom if I was just making up what the monster could do on the fly.

Are you sure your players are looking for "more tactical combat?"  Or are they asking for more agency in combat?  And by agency I mean "predictability in outcomes, costs, and benefits." Because those are two very different things.

As J. Trudel points out, there's a LOT of potential for making DW fights extremely tactical, but the tactics will almost all be about fictional positioning. Like, setting up the fictional situation such that you don't have to make a Defy Danger roll or so that the like outcomes of such a roll are minimized.  The thing is, that sort of "tactical game play" is entirely based on the social dynamics, expectations, assumptions, and playstyle of your group.

Changing DW to a more predictable, "balanced" model of play is going to muck with the system and interactions of the game at a pretty fundamental level.  It's not impossible, but it's a lot of work.  I think you'd be significantly rewriting moves such as Hack and Slash and Defend and Defy Danger.  You might even go so far as rethinking Hit Points and how they are used up or regained.  And tinkering with those moves suddenly makes all sorts of class-specific moves (and possibly spells, gear, etc.) require tinkering.  You're basically desiging a new game.

Also: adding in things like tactical positioning or predictable +1/-1 modifiers are a huge part of what makes D&D3.0+ combat take so long.  By giving your players what they want, you might find that they're losing what they enjoy.

One thought on how you could add a bit of "tactics" without mucking too much the with underlying game: add in an action economy.  By that, I mean some sort of "round" structure where you determine initiative and each player gets one or two moves on their turns.  I remember someone posting about using a Marvel Heroic style of initiative/action economy, where every character (including foes, groups of foes, threats, etc.) gets to make one move (like, literally, one roll) in a turn. After making a move, that player determines who takes the next move, but each character/group/threat can only make one move each "round."

Why use this instead of Perilous Journey?

Two questions:

1) On Go Into Danger, on 7-9 "the GM can offer you a hard bargain or an ugly choice." It notably does not include "a worse outcome."  What's your reasoning on that? 

2) For the Bond moves, you're using the Bonds you have with another PC as a resource that can be used to aid/receive aid/interfere with a PC. That's pretty neat. Have you found yourself missing the chance of "expose yourself to danger or cost" or a missed roll that you get when rolling +Hx or +Bond?

Fun!

Regarding Trust, a couple thoughts:
- "Tx" seems awkward and unnecessary.  "Trust" is short and sweet enough.
- It seems more intuitive to me that your Trust with someone is how much you trust them, and when you help/interfere you roll +their Trust in you.
- There don't seem to be any rules about increasing/decreasing trust, other than what happens when you roll over.  How will that work?  Same as AW and Hx?
- In AW, you can increase or decrease another PCs' Hx with you by 1 at the end of each session.  That makes sense based on what Hx represents (how well you know/work with someone, how in tune you are to them).  But that doesn't make as much sense with "Trust." 

How much I trust you seems like something that's a decision I make about you.  What about baking changes into the help/interfere move?  So that when you help someone, roll +their Trust in you and they have the option to increase or decrease their Trust in you by 1? Or they can just flat-out change their Trust in you, ala The Mountain Witch?  That brings betrayal (and the threat of it) much more into focus, which I'm not sure you want the game to be about.

Neat.

Regarding Master's Wisdom: I'd recommend this:

"Choose another player to portray the memory of your master. When you consider your current situation and the teachings of your master, ask that player what your master told you. Take +1 forward to act on their advice."