[ANSTHRLD] Field Only Conflict Check

[Teceangl]

> Can I get a quick conflict and precedent check on "Paly azure and argent"
> please, to be sure I'm not missing anything?  Thanks.  :)

All I found is Albrechtus Vagus May of 1997: Per pall arrondi sable, azure
and argent.
X.4.a.ii.a. does not include per pall as a substantially different field
division.  Per pall versus any two-tincture field does not change half
the tincture.
We get to count CDs.  X.4.a.ii.c. says, "In any case, independent changes
to the tincture, direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or
number of pieces in the partition may be counted separately when comparing
two pieces of field-primary armory.
So there's one CD for changing the number of pieces from three to many.
I wouldn't think you can compound that by saying per pall is a different
direction, but Laurel has ruled that arrondy is different from straight:

  The question was raised in commentary as to whether gyronny arrondy is
  a CD from plain gyronny. While a chief enarched does not count for
  difference against a plain chief, on a field division such as arrondy
  we are willing to give the necessary CD. (Ottar Hrafnsson, 5/98 p. 12)

I'd consider that grounds for a good argument that on a field division
arrondy counts as a complex line, so a second CD should be gained from
changing the "style of partition lines".

I say it's clear.

- Teceangl
--
       Migosh, you can't sleep now!  There's HERALDRY afoot!