<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="OPENWEBMAIL" name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<font size="2">Thank you,
<br />
<br />I thought it was in there, but somehow when I looked, I went right over it.
<br />
<br />I didn't realize that there was a field only section of the armorial though. I was just looking under PPALE:~and sable:argent.
<br />
<br />If I understand correctly, then by adding a line treatment ( Per pale wavy argent and sable ) that should clear up the conflicts you mentioned.
<br /></font><font size="2">I realize I'll have to do more searching to make sure that there are not any more conflicts.
<br />
<br />Thanks to everyone for their responses.
<br />
<br />Donnchadh
<br />(The still learning) Sable Storm Persuivant
<br />
<br />
<br /><b>---------- Original Message
-----------</b>
<br />
From: tmcd@panix.com
<br />
To: heralds@ansteorra.org
<br />
Sent: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:55:35 -0600 (CST)
<br />
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Field only device
<br />
<br />> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Donnchadh <donnchadh@cornelius.norman.ok.us>
wrote:
<br />>
> Is there any problem with having a field only device? For
<br />>
> example: Per pale, argent and sable.
<br />>
<br />>
Ceteris paribus, there's no problem at all with a field-only device.
<br />>
(Consider my own arms, "Per chevron embattled argent and azure".)
<br />>
The devil is in the conflicts.
<br />>
<br />>
Use the source, Luke^W Donnchadh. If you look at the Rules for
<br />>
Submission, you'll see a subsection devoted solely to field-primary
<br />>
armory, RfS X.4.a.ii:
<br />>
<br />>
ii. Field-Primary Armory - If neither of two pieces of armory
<br />>
being compared has charges, or if each has the same
uncharged
<br />>
peripheral ordinary, they may derive greater
difference from
<br />>
changes to the field. Such armory will be
called
<br />>
_field-primary armory_.
<br />>
<br />>
and then it lists differences. In brief: if it's not field-primary,
<br />>
you could get at most 1 CD for all the cumulative changes to the
<br />>
field, so without RfS X.4.a.ii, field-primary armory would always
<br />>
conflict. But this subsection allows more than one CD for independent
<br />>
changes, or complete difference (no conflict) for others:
<br />>
<br />>
(a) Substantial Change of Partition - If two pieces of
<br />>
field-primary armory have substantially different
partitions,
<br />>
they are considered sufficiently different and do
not
<br />>
conflict, irrespective of any other similarities
between them.
<br />>
<br />>
"Substantial change" is for things like "per pale" versus
"per fess",
<br />>
"per bend", "per saltire", "quarterly".
There's a slightly confusing
<br />>
list that says (of the major lines of division) "per pale" is
<br />>
substantially different from anything but "per pale" and
"paly"
<br />>
(possibly modified, like "per pale embattled" or "paly
nebuly").
<br />>
Since it doesn't say "is 1 CD" but rather "do not conflict",
we can
<br />>
ignore all other lines of partition.
<br />>
<br />>
(b) Complete Change of Tincture - If the fields of two pieces of
<br />>
field-primary armory have no tinctures in common,
they are
<br />>
considered completely different and do not conflict,
<br />>
irrespective of any other similarities between them.
<br />>
<br />>
Straightforward, and a fur counts as a tincture, and a field treatment
<br />>
counts as a change of tincture too. So a conflict has to have either
<br />>
an (unmodified) argent section or an (unmodified) sable section.
<br />>
There's a precedent that says that the shared tincture doesn't have to
<br />>
be on the same section of field, that
<br />>
Per fess gules and Or.
<br />>
conflicts with
<br />>
Per fess Or and gules.
<br />>
even though every pixel on the arms changed color.
<br />>
<br />>
(c) Other Field-Primary Armory - In any case, independent changes
<br />>
to the tincture, direction of partition lines, style
of
<br />>
partition lines, or number of pieces in the
partition may be
<br />>
counted separately when comparing two pieces of
field-primary
<br />>
armory.
<br />>
<br />>
There are two clear differences between "Per
chevron argent
<br />>
and azure" and "Per pale nebuly argent and
azure".
<br />>
<br />>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<br />>
<br />>
As for your specific example, "Per pale, argent and sable". Nit:
by
<br />>
convention, a comma is very very rarely put between a field division
<br />>
and its tinctures. The first comma is usually after the field and
<br />>
before the primary charge, which does not exist here. So we'd blazon
<br />>
it as
<br />>
Per pale argent and sable.
<br />>
<br />>
So if there's "per pale" or "paly" with an argent or a sable
half,
<br />>
you're sunk. My first regular expression I tried was on the raw
<br />>
Armorial file was
<br />>
|Per pale argent and.*|FO|
<br />>
meaning "a blazon starting with 'Per pale argent and' and being in
<br />>
category 'field only'". I don't know whether you can do that with the
<br />>
online search.
<br />>
<br />>
* Brandubh Ó Donnghaile|0106H|d|Per pale argent and sable
<br />>
chapé ployé counterchanged.
<br />>
Only one CD for adding a chapé ployé line of division -- bounce.
<br />>
<br />>
* Malta|9412L|b|Per pale argent and gules.|(Important non-SCA flag)
<br />>
Only one CD for changing half the tincture of the field -- bounce.
<br />>
<br />>
Next search:
<br />>
|Per pale argent and.*|FO|
<br />>
revealed
<br />>
<br />>
* Ædric the Grene|9801Q|d|Per pale sable and vert.
<br />>
1 CD for changing all the tinctures, but by the precedent I
<br />>
mentioned it's not Complete Change of Tincture (sable is shared) --
<br />>
bounce.
<br />>
<br />>
Searches using "paly" instead showed nothing. (The stereotyped
<br />>
American prisoner uniform is "Barry sable and argent", so that's
<br />>
substantial difference and no possible conflict.)
<br />>
<br />>
The above searches covered only plain lines of division. It would not
<br />>
catch a hypothetical "Per pale raguly argent and sable". But a
<br />>
further search for "Per pale.*argent and sable.*|FO|" showed nothing
<br />>
new. I'd think more about whether I was thorough, but having found
<br />>
three conflicts already, I can stop (I could have stopped after
<br />>
Brandubh).
<br />>
<br />>
Ceteris paribus, there's no problem at all with a field-only device.
<br />>
The devil is in the conflicts.
<br />>
<br />>
Daniel de Lincolia
<br />>
--
<br />>
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd@panix.com
<br />>
<br />>
_______________________________________________
<br />>
Heralds mailing list
<br />>
Heralds@ansteorra.org
<br />>
<a target="_blank" href="http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/heralds">http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/heralds</a>
<br /><b>------- End of Original Message
-------</b>
<br />
</font>
</BODY>
</HTML>