[ANSTHRLD] conflict check double check

[Jennifer Smith]

Teceangl corrects me: 

> >  There is indeed a CD between salient/rampant and 
> statant/passant. There's
> >  another CD, as it happens, for reversing the direction of the wolf.
> 
> Apologies for the contradiction, but there is not. X.4.h. gives a CD
> for change of posture or orientation but if both exist they're still
> but one CD. This is the relevant sentence from within the rule text:
> "Multiple changes to the posture or orientation of the same charges
> may not be counted separately, so a lion passant bendwise is one clear
> difference from a lion couchant to sinister."

Now see? The one time I *don't* pull up the RfS to double-check myself when
doing a conflict check and to be able to quote rules, and it bites me.
Lesson learned. :)

-Emma