The Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory - SCA Heraldry

The Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory:The Rules for SubmissionsArgent, in fess two bears rampant vert because each share one rampant bear; combatant is shorthand for'in fess one beast rampant contourny and another rampant'. For example, Argent, a fish haurient gules isnot clear of conflict under this rule with Argent, a fish urinant gules because the reversal does not create ameaningful visual difference. For example, Purpure semy of stags courant Or is not clear of conflictunder this rule with Purpure, six stags couchant Or because the postures are not substantially different.b. Inanimate Charges: Inanimate charges also may be divided into two categories: compact charges andlong charges.Inanimate charges which are generally square or round in overall shape, such as pheons and crescents, areconsidered compact charges. Compact charges are not generally considered to have comparable posturesor orientations for the purposes of this rule.Inanimate charges with a single long axis, such as swords and arrows, are considered long charges. Longcharges have limited groups of orientations which are each considered substantially different from othergroups:• palewise, palewise inverted• fesswise, fesswise reversed• bendwise, bendwise inverted/reversed• bendwise sinister, bendwise sinister inverted/reversedFor example, Or, two straight trumpets palewise purpure does not conflict with Or, two straight trumpetsfesswise purpure, but it is not clear of conflict under this rule with Or, two straight trumpets palewiseinverted purpure. For example, Azure, a sword fesswise proper does not conflict with Azure, a swordbendwise inverted, but it is not clear of conflict under this rule with Azure, a sword fesswise reversedproper because the two orientations are not substantially different. For example, Counter-ermine, a towerbendwise sinister argent is not clear of conflict under this rule with Counter-ermine, a tower bendwiseargent because these two orientations are not substantially different.For example, Gules, a mullet argent is not clear of conflict under this rule with Gules, a mullet invertedargent or with Gules, a mullet bendwise argent because the rotation of the compact mullet does not createa meaningful visual difference.F. Standards for Difference through a Single Substantial Change of Field for Field-Primary Armory: Thisrule applies only to field-primary armory; that is, armory which has no primary charge group, includingarmory with peripheral ordinaries, whether they are charged or uncharged. Field-primary armory is discussedfurther in Appendix I. A new field-primary submission does not conflict with a piece of protected fieldprimaryarmory if the two fields have a substantially different partition or tincture as defined below.Field-primary armory may also be clear of conflict by the addition or removal of a primary charge group, asdescribed in A.5.E.1 above. Field-primary armory may also be clear of conflict by having two independentchanges, including two independent changes to the field itself, as described in A.5.G.1 below.1. Substantial Change of Partition: A new field-primary submission is clear of any other piece of protectedfield-primary armory when it substantially changes the partitioning of the field.a. Total Addition or Removal of Division: Any divided field has a substantially changed partition fromany plain field. The multiply divided furs are considered plain fields for this purpose.For example, Per pale azure and vert is substantially different from Vert, and thus clear of conflict withit. It would also be substantially different from Vair or Potent.Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory – April 29, 2012 - Page 57 of 73