A few weeks ago our local team got knocked out of the UK Nationals at the play-offs, a result which ended our bid for fame and glory in the competition stakes for this year. On our way home we were casting around for something to do next in wargaming, something a bit different. Someone suggested trying out a new set of rules a few of us had acquired a month or so ago and quietly filed in a corner while the practice and preparations for the Nationals continued. I was challenged to a game with the new rules in the following week. Reluctantly I agreed - I was not particularly interested in learning a new set of rules.

A few days later I dug out the rules, belatedly remembering what they were called: Shieldbearer by Michael J Young. The rules are not too volumous, with an easily readable, large print font and interspersed with frequent diagrams - important to a person of my limited attention span and intelligence. There is even an index at the back. The rules are also numbered, in increments of 5, in the left hand margin - useful when trying to reference a particular rule. The style of writing is fairly clear, with none of the complicated conditional statements that WRG rules seem to favour.

Michael Young, the rules author, has neatly sidestepped the eternal base sizing debate by leaving the base sizes up to the individual. The main requirement being that troops are based in elements (or "stands"), and obviously that both sides use the same basing system! He does give suggested base sizes and figures per base, which correspond to the popular WRG 7th edition basing scheme.

The number of figures to a base depends on the order of the troops, with close order troops being based four to a base, loose order being based three (four for drilled foot), and two to a base for open order troops.

Distances are measured in multiples of the base size. For example if your 15mm army uses element widths of 40mm then a distance of '2' is 80mm. Measuring sticks of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 are all you really need, and a set of templates are provided. If you use measuring sticks distances are very easy read off and applied on the table.

Most of the usual weapons types are represented: pilum, javelin, lance, long spear, bow, longbow, pike, crossbow, two handed " smasher", hand gun, sling, artillery and darts. Armour is graded into none, medium, heavy, complete and plate. Armour is independent of order so, for instance, medieval light troops can equip themselves with some armour and Macedonian pikemen will have a slight armour advantage over unarmoured barbarian foot. The regular/ irregular classification was present in the original rules has since been removed. Troops who were practiced are classed as drilled. All troops manoeuvre on the battlefield can perform a limited set of tabletop manoeuvres, but in doing so undrilled troops fall into disorder. It is therefore possible to draw a distinction between Athenian hoplites and Spartan hoplites on grounds other than morale classification, since undrilled does not imply "irregular". Some troop types can also be classed as shock, which makes then slightly more effective when they are on the offensive. You can combine drilled and shock to represent types such as Macedonian Companions or Military Order Knights.

There are seven grades of morale classification, ranging from 7 (the elite of the elite) through to 1 (don't expect them to hang around too long). This score forms the basis of a unitis determination, the higher the score the better the determination. And determination is the key to how a unit will perform. High determination units can be asked to undertake any sort of attack or defense. Troops with a very low determination are difficult to use in any but the most basic and undemanding task. Non professional Early Greek light infantry, for instance, would have a low determination. The rules suggest a score of 2 would be appropriate. This makes them reluctant to even take on an exposed flank, preferring the security of throwing missiles at the flank instead.

My reading of the Greek Classical period seems to bear this out. Light troops kept their distance from hoplites, utilising their missiles instead of their brawn.

Determination is modified by a set of twelve factors, such as CinC witty unit, enemy behind flank, broken friends nearby, or defending an obstacle. When I first saw this table my heart sank. It was reminiscent of the more traditional reaction charts used, for example, by WRG 6th edition. These reaction charts are excruciating torture to work through every time a unit's morale needs to be checked and I was delighted when rules such as WRG 7th and DBA broke away from this style of calculating morale.

Fortunately the Shieldbearer system does seem to be quick and easy to calculate and fairly obvious. Furthermore, determination is calculated only once per turn and once calculated is noted down on the Casualty Record Sheet, of which several are provided with the rules. The current determination is then available for reference later in the turn. If there are no significant changes in a unit's circumstances then determination will simply carry forward from last turn.

One unusual feature of the rules is that determination is not luck dependent. A unit either has the determination to carry out a particular task, or it does not. A higher determination is needed to carry out offensive tasks than is needed for defensive tasks.

For example, a close order infantry unit needs a determination of 3 or more to close with other infantry, but Can stand to receive an enemy foot attack with a score as low as 1. Determination scores needed to perform specific actions are summarised on two tables printed on the back cover of the rules.

I do not see the absence of a random factor in the morale system to be a problem with the rules. The luck element is adequately represented in the melee, shooting, movement and order changing system. A unit's determination is gradually whittled down during combat as a result of shooting or hand-to-hand "hits", and this adequately simulates a unit's determination during sustained combat.

One unusual factor seen in the rules that I have not come across, before is the inclusion of a grading for riding skills. There are three categories: Good, Average and Poor. Thus Early Greek cavalry are classed as poor riders while Scythians are classed as, good. Better quality riders perform slightly better in melee, and are better at pursuit. I was unsure about the introduction of this category of skill (cynics would suggest this is because I possess a Greek Hoplite army), but my opponent liked the idea and it does allow you to simulate differing mounted skills without having to resort to downgrading morale.

Movement is simultaneous, but the time at which troops are moved is governed by orders. Troops with attack orders are advanced first, then troops with defend orders. Troops skirmishing against an opponent are moved at the same time as the approaching forces and, unless they wish to attempt to stand and fight, cannot be used to artificially block or halt attackers.

Controlled "charges" to clear away skirmishers are possible and does not incur any penalty. However, the attacker will not be able to catch skirmishers in the open without extending their charge move, excepting perhaps mounted versus foot skirmishers. Extending the move distance in order to catch skirmishers or routers is voluntary but does start to incur penalties in the form of "hits" (similarish to WRG 7th's fatigue points). Success in extending the move distance is partially luck dependent but is largely a function of order - open order troops have a much higher chance of success than close order troops.

The skirmishers can similarly choose to extend the evade and are liable to the same sorts of penalties. This I like - I never understood in WRG 7th why attackers suffer fatigue but evaders do not. One interesting possibility with the Shieldbearer system is that it can be used to simulate the Spartans initial response to Peltasts. They attempted to "extend" the charge reach of the hoplites by allowing the younger, lighter armed men to dash ahead of the main charge and try to catch the peltasts.

March moves are permitted in the rules if more than 8 from the enemy and consists of simply quadrupling the speed of the normal move.

An interesting feature is the ability to string out elephants in extended order to represent the use made of them as an anti-cavalry screen by some armies, notably the Sassanid Persians. 

The player's ability to manoeuvre units is restricted by a combination of the action orders and limiting a unit's ability to turn or expand frontage, especially when on the offensive. Skirmishers, on the other hand, are relatively flexible and can manoeuvre informally.

One of the cornerstones of the rule system is the use of orders. The order system is reminiscent of the WRG 6th system. Each unit is assigned an order which it is obliged to carry out until a new order is issued or the unit routs. I had some initial reservations about individual order writing but in practice it seems to work reasonably well. A player is required to think ahead and anticipate in order writing and does not have the luxury of moving units as he sees fit (the famous "telepathic" command system) - Orders have a fixed syntax so players will find it difficult to construct long and convoluted orders of the "attack enemy cavalry but if you meet elephants or scythed chariots skirmish, remain 2 inches away from enemy foot but charge light infantry..." variety.

The five basic orders are attack, defend, withdraw, skirmish or join (i.e. join another body to make one composite unit). There are qualifiers that can be added to allow orders to be more sophisticated, but basically within an order type the options are quite limited.

For example, attack really does mean attack and does not allow you to meander the unit forward at half speed because it is convenient. The order system was the one aspect of the rules we found difficult to come to grips with in our first game. We had spent too long using game systems where we could do pretty well what we wanted with units, and it showed when our options were restricted. We had the hang of the system by the second game.

Combat, which includes shooting and hand-to-hand, is calculated by elements rather than by counting up individual figures. This is a logical step in the trend towards elemental basing that has occurred over the last decade or so in rules writing. There is no figure removal, which is a reasonable assumption. Heavy casualties in ancient and medieval battlesonly seemed to occur when one side turned and fled, or, if unable to flee, were surrounded and compressed such that they could nolonger fight. Basing figures in whole elements is also easier for speed of movement on the table andfor transportation purposes - no single figures rattling around tool boxes or falling off hills.

I have reviewed the individual components of the rules favourable.

So how do they work as a whole?

The short answer is very well. We played three games with the rules using different types of armies and periods: Macedonian Successor vs Republican Roman, Italian Norman vs Byzantine and Early Japanese vs Mongol Invasion.

All three games flowed well , and by the second game we felt we had a reasonable command of the rules. The results of individual melees as well as the battles were, we felt, reasonable and consistent with the circumstances surrounding theaction. games were played to a logical conclusion within the time frame an evening. There we re a fewsurprises for me when unconsciously slipped into WRG 7th tactics. For example, open order foot in the open suffer badly against attacking cavalry.

During this review I have mentioned WRG rules several times. This should not be interpreted as implying that Shieldbearer is variant of a set of WRG rules. I simply mention WRG rules because they are well known (love them or hate them! ) and thus form convenient bench-mark when trying to illustrate details about the Shieldbearer rules.

I am not altogether sure how Shieldbearer will work as a set of rules in open competition. All the games we played were friendlies. We came across no obvious loopholes although, as with any new set or rules, they are sure to exist. What is required to make any competition game work successfully with these rules is a strong umpires who will rule firmly until such times a set at conventions becomes widespread, as happens with most other rule sets. The most obvious problem I can see revolves around the morale classification of troops.

There no Shieldbearer army lists (hooray I hear some of you cry!), but the rules do provide guide-lines for converting from WRG morale grades. WRG 'D' class troops equate to grades 1 to 3, 'C' class troops equate to grade 3 to 5, and so on. I suspect that most people, if using WRG lists as a standard, would tend to class their troops towards the higher end of the scale. The "my phalangites are good ol' boys, they should be grade 5" effect. Perhaps this has been foreseen by the author because in his points system morale is the most expensive individual component of the system, with the cost of more expensive grades increased exponentially.

The Shieldbearer rules are certainly worthy of consideration by ancient gamers, and deserve to become successful. If someone. challenges me to further games using these rules I will gladly accept - high praise from a player who has managed to so far lose all the games played with the rules.