[ANSTHRLD] clear or not?

[Tim McDaniel]

On Fri, 30 May 2008, kevinkeary at aol.com <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org> wrote:
> 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.

One of the motivations for the RfS X.4 rules -- that is, the CD rules
-- is that they should approximate a cadency step in period or more.
Examples can be found where changing the tincture of the field or of
charges on the field was a cadency step; I don't know how many
examples can be found of changing both tinctures in a single cadency
step.

As well, there are three forces pulling on the Rules for Submission:
- make them simple
- make them make sense visually
- make them follow period practice

There's already two cases where it's not infrequent for people to
argue that two changes are separate when rules or precedents say that
they aren't:
- forced change of arrangement
- you can't count two CDs for adding charges and then for changing
   their properties
It's simpler to explain that this, that, and the other are all
separate CDs without worrying about interactions.

Danielis Lindonium
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com