[ANSTHRLD] July 2005 Cover Letter

[doug bell]

>From Wreath: Counting DifferencesThe Outlands submission this month for Bjorn inn gauzki, Sable, in bend a compass star and a drakkar prow Or, was an appeal of a kingdom return. The armory was originally returned in kingdom for a conflict with Luxandra of Altumbrea, Sable, semée of suns in splendour Or (1/80, Caid) based on the precedent:Dyan du Lac des Calandres. Badge. Gules, in fess a tassel Or between a decrescent and an increscent argent. Conflict with a badge of Conrad von Regensburg, Gules semy of decrescents argent.
In Conrad's arms, there is a single group of primary charges consisting
of (six or more) evenly strewn argent decrescents. In Dyan's arms,
there is a single group of primary charges consisting of one argent
decrescent, an Or tassel, and an argent increscent. The LoAR of
December 2003 gave a lengthy analysis of the way to count difference in
a similar situation, where the charge group changed from a registered
group of charges on the field consisting of six lions Or, to an in-submission charge group consisting of a lion and a tower Or. That analysis summarized the change as follows:It should be recalled that the SCA protects
REGISTERED armory. Because of this, the SCA considers changes to have
been made from the registered armory to the armory currently under
submission, and has interpreted the Rules for Submission in the manner
that gives the greatest protection to the registered armory, and allows
the fewest possible differences for a change to armory. This implies a
certain lack of symmetry to the ruling, because the interpretation of a
change from "registered" to "considered" does not necessarily match the
change from "considered" to "registered"...In [this] case, the
submitter is changing one of the lions into a castle, which leaves us
with a charge group consisting of five lions and one castle. This
change is to less than half of the charges in that group, so there is
no CD under RfS X.4.e.After the change of the type (a lion into
a castle), we apply the change to the number by removing all but one of
the lions and the castle. Of six charges, we remove four of the lions,
leaving a total of two charges in the group, which is a change from six
to two. RfS X.4.f notes that two and six are signficantly [sic]
different, and therefore, entitled to a CD.In this case, we have changed the charge group on the field from [semy of] decrescents argent to a decrescent argent, an increscent argent, and a tassel Or.
The strewn ("semy") charges are considered to be equivalent to any
charge group with six or more charges for purposes of the rule for
difference in the number of charges on the field (RfS X.4.f).Thus,
when changing Conrad's badge to Dyan's, we are changing one of the (six
or more) argent decrescents into an argent increscent, and one of the
(six or more) argent decrescents into an Or tassel, and leaving (four
or more) of the argent decrescents as argent decrescents. The change in
type of two of six (or more) charges (the single tassel and the single
increscent) is a change to less than half of the charges in the group,
so there is no CD under RfS X.4.e. The change in tincture to one in six
(or more) charges (the tassel) is also a change to less than half the
charges in the group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.d.After
the changes to type and tincture (six or more decrescents argent into
four or more decrescents argent, one increscent argent, and one tassel
Or), we then remove (three or more) of the decrescents, leaving a total
of three charges, which is a change from six (or more) charges to three
charges. RfS X.4.f notes that three and six are significantly
different, and therefore entitled to a CD.As a result, there is only one CD between these two pieces of armory, and they are therefore in conflict.Under this precedent there was a single CD between Bjorn's and Luxandra's armory -- the CD for number of charges.The LoI stated:I
find no evidence of period armory that was cadenced by changing the
type of only one of several identical charges and then removing all but
the changed one and one other. Without solid period evidence that this
sort of pattern would suggest one cadency step, this ruling seems
unnecessarily narrow in its interpretation, and I therefore
respectfully request that it be revisited with an eye to period cadency.It
should be noted that while many of the rules are based on period
cadency, the application of multiple rules may have an effect that is
not in line with period cadency. This is a fact that will not be
changed no matter how the rules are interpreted.In interpreting
the rules, three things are important: protection of registered armory,
ease of explanation (e.g., does the interpretation make sense and can
it be explained to heralds and submitters in a straightforward way),
and simplicity of the registration process.The Rules for
Submission are a means to codify what is essentially a visual art. The
process for determining difference as explained in the ruling on Dyan
du Lac des Calandres has some problems.It assumes that
counting difference is a process requiring a series of intermediate
steps to move from point A, the registered armory, to step B, the
submitted armory, ignoring the visual aspect of the actual armory.It
depends on the rules being applied in a specific sequence. In this
case, that was type of charges before number of charges: changing one
of six charges, worth no CD, and then changing from six to two charges,
worth one CD. However, equally valid would be the reverse sequence:
changing from six to two charges, worth one CD, and then changing type
of one half of the charges, worth a second CD.It
depends on a non-intutive interpretation of the number of charges
changed; Laurel interpreted the change of type as only one of six
charges and worth no CD. However, this could equally have been
interpreted as three of six charges and worth one CD. This second
interpretation is the more likely interpretation.It is not easy to explain to heralds and is especially not easy to explain to submitters.Instead,
we view counting CDs under RfS X.4 as a two-step process: first, the
assumption that differences are reached in the fewest possible steps,
and second, a comparison of the armory as it exists.Under the first step, consider the hypothetical case where Azure, a unicorn argent is registered:Against this, Azure, a lion and a unicorn combatant argent has a single CD for adding the argent lion.Also against this, Azure, a lion Or and a unicorn argent combattant
has a single CD for adding the Or lion. You cannot get a CD for adding
an argent lion and a second CD for changing its tincture to Or as
adding an Or lion is the simplest (i.e., fewest steps) counting of the
differences.This interpretation is consistent with
prior precedent, including the December 2003 ruling (Siridean
MacLachlan, R-Calontir), which statedThe SCA has
always had difficulty dealing with the situation when both the number
and the type of a single charge group change. For a classic example,
consider the hypothetical arms Azure, a lion Or and a unicorn argent combattant versus Azure, a unicorn argent.
In both cases, you have a blue field with a white rampant unicorn. In
the first, the unicorn is also accompanied by a gold lion rampant to
sinister. The traditional SCA view is to give only one CD for removing
the lion so that the two arms are in conflict. However, occasionally,
someone tries to argue from a different perspective, namely, that we
should give one CD for changing the number of the group (from two to
one charge), another CD for changing the type of the group (from half
unicorn, half lion to all unicorn), a third CD for changing the
tincture of the group (from half Or, half argent, to all argent), and a
fourth for changing the posture of the group (from half facing dexter
and half facing sinister, to all facing dexter). This, of course, would
make the arms well clear of conflict. This interpretation has been
disallowed fairly consistently in precedent, although the issue
continues to be raised occasionally. The second
step in determining CDs is comparing the actual armory rather than
using hypothetical intermediate armory. In the original precedent
(Siridean MacLachlan, cited in Dyan du Lac des Calandres, above) with a lion and a castle (submitted) versus six lions (registered), conflict was discussed considering intermediate armory of a castle and five lions and rejecting the alternate intermediate armory of three castles and three lions. Under that precedent, comparing the current submitted armory Sable, in bend a compass star and a drakkar prow Or with the registered armory Sable, semée of suns in splendour Or, there is a CD for the number of charges but nothing for type due to the assumption that the intermediate armory is Sable, a drakkar prow and six (or more) compass stars (or suns).
However, this is not a valid assumption as any intermediate armory is
hypothetical. Therefore, the determination of difference must be based
on a comparison of the actual armory, submitted versus registered,
rather than against hypothetical intermediary armory. In the case of
the current submission, we are comparing a compass star and a drakkar prow versus semée of suns.
There is no difference granted between a compass star and a sun;
however, there is a CD for the number of charges and there is a second
CD for changing from all suns (compass stars) to only half suns
(compass stars).This two-step process still provides reasonable
protection to registered armory, while being both easier to explain and
to apply. The December 2003 and March 2004 precedents are thus
overturned. In summary, when counting differences:Use the minimum number of steps or changes between the armory to determine the number of CDs.Compare the registered and submitted armory without assuming any
hypothetical intermediate armory.