[ANSTHRLD] clear or not?

[Teceangl]

> Are you saying that in any fairly simple armory with a field parted in two
> equal parts and all charges counterchanged, reversing the tinctures
> automatically produces (at least) TWO CDs? That just feels wrong somehow.
> Whether it follows the LETTER of the rules or not, it seems to violate the
> concepts behind the rules.
>
> ('At least' because you could be changing the tinctures of primary,
> secondary and tertiary charges).
>
> And dyslexics would see no differences at all...
> (I know, gules and vert are the same to most colorblind people, too.)

Well, let's start with these last two comments.
Brace yourself...

Heraldry is not as much an art of difference in visual identification
as you think it is.

Now, have a lie-down and a bit of brandy and recover from that for a
moment, then we'll go on. :)

Heraldry difference is determined by cadency, and the SCA has
generalized and in some cases simplified cadency rather a lot.  In
Scotland there is evidence of adding a primary charge being but a
single cadency step. In Spain fields per saltire were used for
marshaling (at least once).  What the SCA would consider three or even
four CDs was sometimes no more than a single cadency step in France,
Burgundy and Germany.  So while we can equate what we do with 'general
period practice', there will always be holes (just like period heralds
never needed to deal with someone wanting to be Italian-Irish-Japanese
and combine heraldic elements from all three cultures).

So, that being said, let's review the Rules.  Pull 'em up, I'll wait.
http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/rfs.html

X.4.a. Field Difference - Significantly changing the tinctures,
direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or number of
pieces in a partition of the field is one clear difference.

X.4.d. Tincture Changes - Changing the tinctures or division of any
group of charges placed directly on the field, including strewn
charges or charges overall, is one clear difference.

Pertinent part of X.4.a.: number of pieces in a partition of the field
Dividing a field per pale is making it two pieces.  Tincture doesn't
even enter into it, half can match the original, you still get a CD.

Pertinent part of X.4.d.: division of any group of charges placed
directly on the field
Dividing a charge group from no tincture division to per pale is
changing the division. Tincture doesn't matter, half can match, it's a
CD.

So yes, going from '<Plain field>, <charges> <single-tincture>' to
<Divided field>, <charges> <counterchanged>' is two CDs.  Always.

Now, regarding X.5. and color sense.  First, never has X.5. been
called between a plain field and a field divided (without the presence
of excessive counterchanging). Nor is it usually called when the field
tincture differs.  I've been present when someone tried calling X.5.
between armories with the field azure on the registered device and the
field gules on the submission. Honestly, that person got looked at as
though they'd just says something filthy in Sanskrit.  Heraldry is,
and must be, a color-based art. It panders (harsh term but it fits) to
those with full color sense and anyone who does not see colors true
are pretty much on their own.
Once upon a time there was 'conflict by outline'.  Take out the
tinctures and division lines and if the silhouette matches, it was in
conflict.  This was overruled before 1988, thankfully, because not
only does it have no basis in fact, it would create SUCH an awful
conflict snarl that the myth 'you can't register <reasonable design>'
would become truth.

Remember, the Rules for Submission aren't just a guideline. Even when
they make no sense to you personally, they apply and need to be used.
:)

- Teceangl
-- 
Heraldry is designed to be easily reproduced by anyone who sees the arms. -
http://www.s-gabriel.org/docs/clichelist.html