[ANSTHRLD] Help with conflict check

[Teceangl]

> Per bend argent and sable.
>
> Based on what Teceangl found I would think it is clear.
> Whatever the reason lovely simple armory like this
> should be submitted.  It will give Z. a chance to
> revisit these rules interpretations.  We may need to
> adjust our field primary rules so we don't discourage
> a very period style of armory.

The new Laurel armory decider (they think she'll be Wreath Sovereign of
Arms, BTW) is *very* willing to consider evidence from period practice
which challenges the way the SCA has done things versus how it should be
done for proper perios re-creation.

So if someone can find examples of period armory using arms belonging
to unrelated people sharing a field tincture on a device _without_charges_
or with only a peripheral ordinary (chief, base, orle, bordure) which
is consistent with the truth that period heralds did not consider "Per
pale gules and argent" a cadency change from "Per pale argent and azure",
then by ALL means please present it!

But without period examples and an intelligent analysis, forget it.
"Because we think it's so" isn't documentation, it's opinion.  And
without proof, no decision to overturn rules or longstanding precedent
will be considered.

I believe that this is a bad rule and that it needs to be reviewed and
overturned on the grounds that period heralds would not have considered
two coats with one shared tincture which moved that tincture completely
across the field and changed the other tincture totally only a single
cadency move.  I'm pretty sure that the readily available armorials
should provide the proof.  I look forward to seeing this come up in
commentary.

- Teceangl
--
     A straight line is the shortest distance between one point.