[ANSTHRLD] Field only device

[tmcd at panix.com]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Donnchadh <donnchadh at cornelius.norman.ok.us> wrote:
> Is there any problem with having a field only device?  For
> example: Per pale, argent and sable.

Ceteris paribus, there's no problem at all with a field-only device.
(Consider my own arms, "Per chevron embattled argent and azure".)
The devil is in the conflicts.

Use the source, Luke^W Donnchadh.  If you look at the Rules for
Submission, you'll see a subsection devoted solely to field-primary
armory, RfS X.4.a.ii:

    ii. Field-Primary Armory - If neither of two pieces of armory
        being compared has charges, or if each has the same uncharged
        peripheral ordinary, they may derive greater difference from
        changes to the field.  Such armory will be called
        _field-primary armory_.

and then it lists differences.  In brief: if it's not field-primary,
you could get at most 1 CD for all the cumulative changes to the
field, so without RfS X.4.a.ii, field-primary armory would always
conflict.  But this subsection allows more than one CD for independent
changes, or complete difference (no conflict) for others:

    (a) Substantial Change of Partition - If two pieces of
        field-primary armory have substantially different partitions,
        they are considered sufficiently different and do not
        conflict, irrespective of any other similarities between them.

"Substantial change" is for things like "per pale" versus "per fess",
"per bend", "per saltire", "quarterly".  There's a slightly confusing
list that says (of the major lines of division) "per pale" is
substantially different from anything but "per pale" and "paly"
(possibly modified, like "per pale embattled" or "paly nebuly").
Since it doesn't say "is 1 CD" but rather "do not conflict", we can
ignore all other lines of partition.

    (b) Complete Change of Tincture - If the fields of two pieces of
        field-primary armory have no tinctures in common, they are
        considered completely different and do not conflict,
        irrespective of any other similarities between them.

Straightforward, and a fur counts as a tincture, and a field treatment
counts as a change of tincture too.  So a conflict has to have either
an (unmodified) argent section or an (unmodified) sable section.
There's a precedent that says that the shared tincture doesn't have to
be on the same section of field, that
    Per fess gules and Or.
conflicts with
    Per fess Or and gules.
even though every pixel on the arms changed color.

    (c) Other Field-Primary Armory - 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.

        There are two clear differences between "Per chevron argent
        and azure" and "Per pale nebuly argent and azure".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for your specific example, "Per pale, argent and sable".  Nit: by
convention, a comma is very very rarely put between a field division
and its tinctures.  The first comma is usually after the field and
before the primary charge, which does not exist here.  So we'd blazon
it as
    Per pale argent and sable.

So if there's "per pale" or "paly" with an argent or a sable half,
you're sunk.  My first regular expression I tried was on the raw
Armorial file was
    |Per pale argent and.*|FO|
meaning "a blazon starting with 'Per pale argent and' and being in
category 'field only'".  I don't know whether you can do that with the
online search.

*   Brandubh Ó Donnghaile|0106H|d|Per pale argent and sable
    chapé ployé counterchanged.
Only one CD for adding a chapé ployé line of division -- bounce.

*   Malta|9412L|b|Per pale argent and gules.|(Important non-SCA flag)
Only one CD for changing half the tincture of the field -- bounce.

Next search:
    |Per pale argent and.*|FO|
revealed

* Ædric the Grene|9801Q|d|Per pale sable and vert.
  1 CD for changing all the tinctures, but by the precedent I
  mentioned it's not Complete Change of Tincture (sable is shared) --
  bounce.

Searches using "paly" instead showed nothing.  (The stereotyped
American prisoner uniform is "Barry sable and argent", so that's
substantial difference and no possible conflict.)

The above searches covered only plain lines of division.  It would not
catch a hypothetical "Per pale raguly argent and sable".  But a
further search for "Per pale.*argent and sable.*|FO|" showed nothing
new.  I'd think more about whether I was thorough, but having found
three conflicts already, I can stop (I could have stopped after
Brandubh).

Ceteris paribus, there's no problem at all with a field-only device.
The devil is in the conflicts.

Daniel de Lincolia
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com