[ANSTHRLD] Conflict check, get your darts out!

tmcd@panix.com tmcd at panix.com
Fri Sep 8 12:55:11 PDT 2006

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Schalles, Francis T <francis.schalles at ttuhsc.edu> wrote:
> Checky (Chequy) gules and sable, an elephant rampant argent.


Instant return, per RfS VIII.2.b, contrast.

First, RfS VIII.2.a.

    a.   Contrasting Tinctures - Good contrast exists between:

    i.   A metal and a color;

    ii.  An element equally divided of a color and a metal, and any
     other element as long as identifiability is maintained;

    iii.  A color and a charge, blazoned as proper, that is
     predominantly light;

    iv.  A metal and a charge, blazoned as proper, that is
    predominantly dark.

So gules and sable don't have "good contrast" as defined by that rule.
Now on to RfS VIII.2.b, which I'll quote almost completely just for
educational purposes.

    b.   Contrast Requirements

    i.  The field must have good contrast with every charge placed
     directly on it and with charges placed overall.

    ii.  A charge must have good contrast with any charge placed
    wholly on it.

    iii.  Elements evenly divided into two parts, per saltire, or
     quarterly may use any two tinctures or furs.

     For example, a field quarterly could be composed of azure and
     gules, argent and Or, Or and ermine, or vert and vairy gules and

    iv.  Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of two different
     tinctures must have good contrast between their parts.

     For example, "checky argent and gules" is acceptable, but "checky
     azure and gules" is not.

    v.  Elements evenly divided in three tinctures must have good
     contrast between two of their parts.

Note RfS VIII.2.b.iv, where the particular example is almost the same
as yours.  Ka-boing.

> *	Simona dell'Amore
> 	* registered in August of 2004 (via Atlantia)
> 		Sable, an elephant rampant argent.

As already noted, one CD for the field, but no other changes, so it's
a conflict.

To go into details: the armory conflict-checking rules are under RfS
X.  The CD-counting rules are in RfS X.4 (there are two other ways to
clear conflict, but neither is applicable here).

RfS X.4.a tells when you can get difference for the field.  Because
there's a primary charge, you can get at most 1 CD for all the changes
to the field.

> I could render the elephant to the sinister which might clear the
> conflict.

It would clear *this* conflict, if you also changed the field, but of
course it might cause another.

If I may make style suggestions:

More fundamentally, "make it point to sinister" is an SCA cliche to
clear conflict.  Very few medieval arms had charges to sinister,
especially uncommon ones like elephants in unusual postures like
rampant (unusual for an elephant, that is).  Usually, in period,
seeing charges to sinister meant that you were looking at the back
side of a banner, or arms that had been mirror-reflected to face the
altar or whatever.

Checky is an excellent idea -- it was used a lot more in period than
in the SCA.  You might also consider barry, even more so.  Neither
field would clear the conflict, of course, still being one CD.

If you want better medieval style, you should consider the default
posture of an elephant, statant.  You should also consider putting a
tower or castle on its back, which was often done in period.  Mind
you, that'll probably put you in more conflicts, especially
considering that this precedent says that there's no CD for the tower:

    ... There is a CD for changing the field but no difference for
    adding the tower. Towers are commonly found on the back of
    elephants, and must be blazoned when present. However, such towers
    are of much less visual weight than the elephant, and are
    therefore equivalent to maintained charges. The tower in Andrew's
    arms follows this pattern. [Dionello Cristoforo dei Medici, 03/02,
    R-An Tir]

Do you think three, four (two and two), or six elephants would be too
much work for you in making banners, shields, et cetera?  Depending on
what's registered, an unusual field plus having multiples might get
the two CDs.

Dankyn de Lyncoln
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com

More information about the Heralds mailing list