ANSTHRLD - Yet another conflict check

Jennifer Smith jds at
Sun Jan 28 21:01:41 PST 2001

On 28 Jan 01, at 19:08, Timothy A. McDaniel wrote:
> It is for the most part true that you can't get a CD for a property
> that's present in one design but impossible in the other.  One of the
> designs here has only one charge.  It is impossible for one charge to
> be "in pale", "in fess", "in orle", "in schnecke", or any other
> arrangement term (which apply to multiple charges only).  There is one
> CD for adding the crescent, but none for arrangement, so they
> conflict.

I suspected as much; darn.  Ah well, it'll give me a chance to try to talk the 
submitter into a better badge. :)

> More interestingly, addition of tertiary charges to a charge that
> isn't in one of the designs is still a CD.
>     Sable, a widget Or.
> has two CDs from
>     Sable, a widget and on a chief Or three wadgets sable.
> (If you object that the chief, or any other secondary, isn't in the
> simpler design, so you shouldn't get a CD for doing something to it:
> well, by long-standing precedent, you do.)

I assume the reverse is also true?  That is, the latter has two CDs from the 
former also?  If so, that answers most of the questions I had in my other 
post with the "big white bear" device.


Jennifer Smith
jds at
Go to to perform mailing list tasks.

More information about the Heralds mailing list