[ANSTHRLD] Field only device

[Donnchadh]

Thank you,

I thought it was in there, but somehow when I looked, I went right over it. 

I didn't realize that there was a field only section of the armorial though.  I was just looking under PPALE:~and sable:argent.

If I understand correctly, then by adding a line treatment ( Per pale wavy argent and sable ) that should clear up the conflicts you mentioned.
I realize I'll have to do more searching to make sure that there are not any more conflicts.

Thanks to everyone for their responses.

Donnchadh 
(The still learning) Sable Storm Persuivant

---------- Original Message -----------
From: tmcd at panix.com 
To: heralds at ansteorra.org 
Sent: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:55:35 -0600 (CST) 
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Field only device

> 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 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Heralds mailing list 
> Heralds at ansteorra.org 
> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/heralds 
------- End of Original Message -------
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ansteorra.org/pipermail/heralds-ansteorra.org/attachments/20041207/bbf983f4/attachment-0002.htm>