[ANSTHRLD] badge help

[Ryder, Brent]

Tecangl wrote:

> The default for a mountain is issuant from base.  So it can be said to
> be forced into that position.

default positioning and forced positioning are to separate things to me.
Default is just where it is most commonly seen in period. Forced would
be a move to clear color on color or metal on metal restrictions.

>Also, even issuant from base, a mountain can take up an awful lot of
>field, so a placement CD isn't guaranteed.

This I find to be in conflict with the quote you stated below:

> From the September 2001 LoAR:
>
>   Charles le Grey. Name and device. Argent, a tierce gules.
>
>   This device is in conflict with the Barony of the Eldern Hills,
>   Argent, a mountain of three peaks issuant from base gules. The SCA
>   currently considers a mountain to be a variant of a mount, which is
>   a peripheral ordinary, as per the following precedents:
>
>   Mountains, as variants of mounts, should be emblazoned to occupy no
>   more than the lower portion of the field. (Barony of Blackstone
>   Mountain, September, 1993, pg. 10)

If a mount or Mountain is to only take up the bottom half of the field,
then moving it half way up the field should provide a change in position
CD. The problem lies in a mountain being defined as a peripheral
ordinary which is not how it is being used in the proposed submission.

> At *this* time, a mountain cannot be a primary charge.

Hmmmm..... I wonder if a test case should be put through to get this
changed....

> However, in the proposal neither is it a peripheral, so you cannot get

>more than a CD for changes to the field.  Hence, it probably conflicts
>with only the difference to the field for a single CD.

OK, lost me on this one. If it is not a peripheral charge (which it is
currently defined to be) then removal of the peripheral charge in one
and the addition of and non-forced positioning of the other should
provide sufficient CD's. Unfortuantely, I believe the problem is
revolving around the definition of a mount or mountain.

> Convoluted, I know.  I do not like the conclusions drawn in the
precedent
> I cited, but unfortunately, neither have I the refuting documentation
to
> challenge it.  (I tried, trust me.)

Are there no peripheral ordinaries used as sub-ordinaries in period?

Borek, Star