[ANSTHRLD] simple armory
tmcd at panix.com
Fri Aug 11 15:19:28 PDT 2006
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Luciana Caterina di Boniface <dolce.luce at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/11/06, Hedwig von Luneborg <lochherald at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In trying to grasp the simple armory rules of RfS X.2 am I wrong
> > in understanding that :
> > Per bend Or and vert two dolphins counter-changed
> > would not conflict with
> > Per bend Or and vert two towers counter changed
> > or
> > Per bend Or and vert two butterflies counter-changed
> > because the charge groups are different
> > or do I misunderstand this rule altogether?
> I am still learning also. I 'think' I am only seeing 1 CD between
> them, though.
You're both right. There's only one CD, and they're clear of conflict.
I find it helpful to quote from the Rules for Submission (RfS) when
discussing the minutiae. <http://sca.org/heraldry/laurel/rfs.html>,
off of the Laurel main page at <http://sca.org/heraldry/>. (I have a
copy downloaded to a convenient place on my hard drive.)
PART X --- CONFLICTING ARMORY
1. Addition of Primary Charges - Armory does not conflict with ...
2. Substantially Different Charges - Simple armory does not
conflict with other simple armory if ...
4. Significant Armorial Differences - Two pieces of armory will
not be considered to conflict if ...
The thing to notice is that all of them are negative: they all say
under what conditions armory is clear of conflict. That is, you can
clear conflict by any of the three methods. If the new armory is
clear of conflict by one method, it's clear, end of story, regardless
of what the other two say.
It is true, for example, that
Per bend Or and vert, two dolphins counter-changed.
Per bend Or and vert, two towers counter changed.
have only one CD, for change of type of a group directly on the field
(RfS X.4.e). However, it's also true that they meet all the
requirements of RfS X.2, Substantially Different Charges, so by RfS
X.2, they're clear, regardless of whether they have 1 CD or 17 CDs.
You should choose the easiest way to clear conflict. Most often,
that's using RfS X.2 (substantial difference in type), but sometimes
RfS X.4 (CD counting) is the easy way.
For example, consider
Argent, a sea-unicorn sable.
Sable, a sea-horse argent.
A sea-X (with few exceptions) means that the front half is an X but
the back half is a fish's tail. Are a sea-unicorn and a sea-horse
substantially different in type? I don't know, and in this example,
I don't care. I see one CD for change of field tincture (RfS X.4.a)
and one CD for change of tincture of a charge group directly on the
field (RfS X.4.d). Since there are two CDs, I won't bother with a
precedents dive for sea-X precedents.
(OK, I got curious. There's a Da'ud 2.1 precedent under "Difference
(Substantial)" saying that there's a CD between a seawolf and a
sea-unicorn, but because of the fish tails, he couldn't apply X.2.
A Jaelle precedent, under "Difference, Technical vs. Visual", says "a
horse is a CD from a unicorn", though Bruce earlier, under "Beast --
Horse", wrote "There is at least a CD between a horse and a correctly
drawn (i.e. medieval) unicorn", and similarly at least a CD between a
horse's head and a unicorn's head ("Head -- Monster, Unicorn").)
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com
More information about the Heralds