SENA, Armory Part 5, Conflict

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wikispace only to make the content of SENA "searchable" and easier to find. If you think you find the information you seek here, go to the official home of SENA on the SCA Laurel Website to confirm the reference. [[1]]

---

A.5. Armory Conflict

#A5AA.5.A. Definitions and General Principles:

To be registered, a new submission must be clear of conflict with all registered armory. Conflict is both a period concept and a modern part of the requirement in the Governing Documents that armory has sufficient difference to avoid undue confusion. There are two types of confusion a submission must avoid. The first is confusion of identity and is based on the ideas of visual similarity and heraldic equivalency. In this case, confusion is caused by the appearance of owning armory that is the same as or has effectively no difference from registered armory which belongs to someone else. The second is confusion of relationship and is based on the idea that children would use armory that was similar to but differenced or cadenced from that of their parents. The methods by which children would difference their arms from their parent's arms were sometimes known as cadency steps, and the standards which developed for these differences are collectively called "cadency". Cadency in our period was a complex, changing set of guidelines that varied widely. These rules are designed to treat as cadency steps most of the important period forms of cadency while ignoring changes that were used rarely, only in exceptional cases, or only during the early proliferation of heraldry. In general, we require two armorial designs to have a level of difference greater than a single cadency step, so that they do not make the claim to be close relatives of each other or confuse their identities. This can be either a single greater change, of types not generally used for cadencing, or two changes that are equivalent to cadency steps. Two designs which differ in one of these ways are said to be clear of conflict, or "independent designs". In some cases, two armorial designs, despite having sufficient technical differences, may have overwhelming visual similarity, causing undue confusion and thus these two designs will be considered to be in conflict. In general, we call changes which are equivalent to cadency steps "distinct changes", abbreviated as DC. Older rulings may refer to these types of changes as "significant differences", "clear differences", "CD"s, or even "clear visual differences" and "CVD"s. There are other types of changes which are greater than that, normally seen between "strangers in blood" rather than related individuals. We call these larger changes substantial changes, abbreviated as SC. Older rulings regarding substantial changes may also refer to "substantial difference" or "X.2". There are also changes which are smaller than a cadency step. These changes do not contribute to difference between two armorial designs, and are discussed in [[2]] below.

#A5BA.5.B. Armory Protected from Conflict:

To be clear of conflict, a new submission must be clear of conflict with all registered armory. A piece of armory is registered and protected from the moment it is listed as accepted on a published Letter of Acceptances and Returns. Registered armory will be listed in the Ordinary and Armorial as soon as possible, but it is protected as soon as the Letter of Acceptances and Return is published. We also protect armory of important people and entities outside the SCA; they are addressed in [[3]] Presumption below.

#A5CA.5.C. Comparisons of Armory:

When considering armory for purposes of possible conflict, there are a number of factors which should be considered.

#A5C1A.5.C.1. Blazons Which Must Be Considered:

While we register the emblazon, rather than the blazon, most conflict checking is done from the blazon. Thus, when considering armory for purposes of possible conflict, all reasonable blazons for a specific design must be considered. You may not blazon your way out of conflict. Blazons that are unregisterable under our core style rules (such as blazons that would produce quaternary charges or contrast issues) or that require unlikely understandings of an armorial design do not need to be considered for conflict purposes, unless that blazon is due to the use of an Individually Attested Pattern, is due to voiding or fimbriation, or is the existing blazon of a piece of registered armory. For example, a lozenge throughout must also be considered as vêtu. Thus Vert, on a lozenge throughout argent, a rose proper must be considered both under that blazon and as Argent vêtu vert, a rose proper. For example, three fesses must also be considered as barry. Thus, Gules, three fesses ermine must be considered both under that blazon and as Barry gules and ermine. This is true whenever armory uses three or more identical ordinaries. For example, Gules, a fess Or does not need to be considered as Or, a chief and a base gules, as this is an unlikely understanding of the armorial design. Gules, a tree within an annulet argent does not need to be considered as Gules, on a roundel argent, a roundel gules charged with a tree argent because this requires the tree to be a quaternary charge. However, the registered Gules, a bear passant sable must be considered as it is blazoned, even though it violates the core style rules on contrast. Armorial designs with voided or fimbriated charges must be considered for purposes of conflict in multiple ways. In most cases, voided charges are considered as a base charge with a tertiary charge and as a base charge with fimbriation (the fimbriation being an artistic detail worth no difference). However, this does not always work in reverse - two ordinaries are not considered as a single ordinary voided. Fimbriated charges are considered as a base charge (with the fimbriation being an artistic detail worth no difference), or as a base charge with a tertiary charge. For example, Azure, a mullet voided argent must be considered as Azure, on a mullet argent a mullet azure and as Azure, a mullet azure fimbriated argent, with the fimbriation worth no difference (even though this blazon would be unregisterable). Similarly, Or, a mullet argent fimbriated gules is must be considered as Or, a mullet argent even though this violates our core style rules on contrast, and as Or, on a mullet gules another argent. For example, Erminois, a cross argent fimbriated vert must be considered as Erminois, a cross argent, even though this violates our core style rules on contrast, and as Erminois, on a cross vert a cross argent. However, Argent, a bend Or fimbriated gules is not considered as Argent, a bend Or between two bendlets gules because this blazon would have argent stripes separating the Or and gules stripes.Similarly, Argent, two bendlets gules is not considered as either Argent, a bend argent fimbriated gules or Argent, on a bend gules a bendlet argent. #A5C2

A.5.C.2. Comparing Charge Groups:

In general, only charge groups that are comparable in type should be compared for specific difference under the rules below. That is, a primary charge group should be compared to a primary charge group only, a secondary charge group should be compared to a secondary charge group only, a tertiary charge group should be compared to a tertiary charge group only, and an overall charge group should be compared to an overall charge group only. ====#A5C2a==== ====A.5.C.2.a. Addition and Removal of Charges from a Single Charge Group====  : Within a single charge group, changes that can be described as the addition or removal of certain charges are treated as a single change. When the changes cannot be simply described as an addition or removal of charges, the entire charge group must be compared as a whole. For example, there is only one difference between Gules, a fess and in chief two water bougets Or and Gules, a fess between two water bougets and two mullets two and two Or for the change in number in the secondary charge group. This is because the addition or removal of the two mullets creates a group identical to the comparable group in the other armory. Which piece of armory is registered does not matter for purposes of this rule. However, there are two differences between Sable, a fess between three water bougets Or and Sable, a fess between two water bougets Or and two mullets two and two Or. The first is for the change of number in the secondary charge group. Since removing a single mullet does not result in a group of charges which is identical to the comparable group in the other armory, there is a second difference for changing the type of the charge group. These examples hold true even if none of them have the fess, where the water bougets and mullets are the primary charge group; in the first case, the difference is a substantial change, and in the second case both differences are distinct changes. ====#A5C2b==== ====A.5.C.2.b. Comparing Secondary Charge Groups:==== Several kinds of secondary charge groups can occur together in a design. If two designs each have a single kind of secondary charge group, those secondary charge groups are treated as comparable for purposes of style and conflict, regardless of the type of each group. When multiple types of secondary charge groups are found in a design, identical types of secondary charge groups are compared first and then the remaining secondary charge groups can be compared independently. For example, Argent semy-de-lys azure, a fess cotised and a chief sable has three secondary charge groups: the semy-de-lys, the cotises, and the chief. For example, when comparing Argent semy-de-lys azure, a fess and a chief sable with Argent, a fess sable cotised azure, a chief sable, the chiefs would be compared, and then the cotises and fleurs-de-lys would be compared. However, for the designs Argent, a fess and in base a portcullis sable and Argent, a fess and a chief sable, the secondary portcullis must be compared to the secondary chief. ====#A5C2c==== ====A.5.C.2.c. Comparing Tertiary Charge Groups==== Tertiary charge groups can occur in several places on a design, as they may appear on multiple types of charges. Tertiary charge groups can only be directly compared when they are on comparable charge group types. That is, a tertiary charge group on a primary charge cannot be directly compared to a tertiary charge group on a secondary charge group. ====#A5C2d==== ====A.5.C.2.d. Defining Half of a Charge Group====  : * When a group of three charges on the field is arranged two and one, the bottom charge is considered half the charge group. * When a tertiary charge group of three charges is on a central ordinary or chief, the centermost charge is considered half the charge group. * A central charge or charge group balanced around the center of the device, when divided by a line of division splitting the field into two parts, is considered to be divided in half by that line. This is true whether or not the total area contained in the charges is evenly distributed between the halves, such as when the charge is not symmetric across the line of division. Thus, this is a common occurrence with animate charges. * When a primary or secondary charge group is split so that part of it lies on each side of a line of division or ordinary splitting the field in two parts, the section containing the smaller number of charges is considered half the charge group, even if it is less than half numerically. For example, in Argent, two crosses couped vert and a brown bear proper, the crosses couped are considered half the primary charge group and the bear is considered the other half. In Pean, on a chief Or a fleur-de-lys between two roundels azure, the fleur-de-lys is considered half the tertiary charge group and the roundels are the other half. In Per fess sable and argent, a horse salient counterchanged, the half of the horse below the line of division is considered half of the primary charge group, even though the bottom half of a horse is visually smaller than the top half. In Per chevron vair and gules, three roses gules and a lozenge argent, the three roses are considered half the primary charge group and the lozenge is considered the other half. In each of these special cases, a maximum of one distinct change, as defined in [[4]], can be derived from changes to the smaller of the sections defined as half under these rules. #A5C3

A.5.C.3. Some Changes Which Do Not Count for Difference:

Changes that are smaller than a cadency step, as described below, do not contribute to difference between two armorial designs, no matter how many of them there are. These sorts of changes were often understood as artistic variation or details which could be included or omitted in display of the armory. This includes maintained charges and differences in artistic style, including details like arming and languing. It also includes minor variation in the placement of charges and changes in outline due to different artistic representations. Additionally, for certain charge types, all variants of that charge are considered equivalent for conflict purposes. For example, a lion Or armed gules, where the claws and teeth are red, would not be different from a lion Or, where the lion is wholly gold, nor would either be different from a lion Or langued azure, where the mouth is open with a blue tongue. A moon in her plenitude, with a face on it, would not be different from either a moon or a roundel. Similarly, a dragon maintaining a sword would not be different from either a dragon maintaining a mouse or a dragon and the exact positioning of the maintained sword would likewise not matter. For example, a lion is not different from any other type of natural feline. This includes, but is not limited to: a domestic cat, a catamount, a mountain lion, an ounce, a tiger, and so on. However, it is different from a heraldic tyger, which is a heraldic monster. Other types which include many variants are dogs (which includes wolves and foxes) and swords/daggers. #A5C4

A.5.C.4. Augmentations:

As discussed in [[5]], in a submission of augmented arms where the augmentation appears to be a display of independent armory, such as a charged canton or a single charged escutcheon, the augmentation must be checked for conflict as if it were a submission of independent armory.

#A5DA.5.D. Standards for Visual Conflict:

Despite being technically clear of conflict under the rules below, some armorial designs and elements are still too visually similar to be considered clear of conflict.

• #A5D1
• ===A.5.D.1. Visually Equivalent Blazons:===
• The use of different terminology to describe two designs that are visually similar does not affect any potential for conflict that may exist. Another way of putting this rule is: you can't blazon your way out of a conflict. Two charges can also be overly visually similar, though period depictions of charges that were considered different in period will generally be considered to be different (at least a distinct change (DC) apart).
• For example, Or, a fess vert has a visual conflict with Vert, a chief and a base Or even though the two blazons should theoretically have sufficient difference, and we would not currently register the second blazon. For example, Purpure, three scarpes argent has a visual conflict with Bendy sinister purpure and argent even though one appears to have primary charges and the other appears to have no primary charges.
• #A5D2
• ===A.5.D.2. Total Design:===
• Occasionally, two arrangements of charges may create a design that is nearly indistinguishable visually, even though there is sufficient technical difference between them. In general, any significant visual difference between the designs will be enough to give the submitter the benefit of the doubt.
• For example, a rose and overall a sword argent is not different from a sword and overall a rose argent, because it is quite difficult to tell which one is overall the other when they are the same tincture. However, the arrangement a rose Or and overall a sword argent is easily distinguishable from a sword argent and overall a rose Or.

#A5E

A.5.E. Standards for Difference through A Single Substantial Change to the Primary Charge Group:

A new submission that differs from a piece of protected armory by one of the following changes does not conflict with the piece of protected armory. These are the types of changes that were not commonly used for cadency; they are the kind of changes most likely to be seen between unrelated people - "strangers in blood". In most cases, these changes must affect the entire primary charge group; changes to other charge groups and changes which affect only half the primary charge group may contribute to difference as described in [[6]] below.

• #A5E1
• ====A.5.E. 1. Adding or Removing the Primary Charge Group:====
• A new submission does not conflict with any protected armory if it adds a primary charge group or removes a primary charge group. Thus, any armory which is field-primary does not conflict with any armory which has a primary charge group.
• For example, Per bend azure and Or, a clarion and a trefoil counterchanged, a chief indented argent does not conflict with Per bend azure and Or, a chief indented argent, because it adds a primary charge group of the clarion and the trefoil. For example, Counter-ermine, a bordure argent pellety does not conflict with Counter-ermine, three lozenges argent, a bordure argent pellety, because it removes the primary charge group of the lozenges.
• #A5E2
• ====A.5.E.2. Substantial Change of Type of the Primary Charge Group:====
• A new submission which substantially changes the type of each primary charge from a piece of protected armory does not conflict with it. When possible, each charge in the new armory is compared to the charge in the corresponding location in the protected armory. Some charges which are not substantially different may qualify for a distinct change, as described in [[7]] below.
• For example, Argent, a fess sable does not conflict with Argent, a lion's head cabossed sable. For example, Vert, two eagles and a maunche argent does not conflict with Vert, three lozenges argent. For example, Azure, a fess between three cups Or does not conflict with Azure, a chevron between three cups Or. For example, Gules, four wolves two and two argent does not conflict with Gules, semy of lions argent. For example, Per fess ermine and Or, two unicorns and a raven sable, an orle azure does not conflict with Per fess ermine and Or, three sea-horses sable, an orle azure.In each case the type of every primary charge has been substantially changed.
• Per chevron gules and argent, three crequiers counterchanged is not clear of conflict with Per chevron gules and argent, two mullets and a crequier counterchanged under this rule because not all of the primary charges have been substantially changed. However, Per chevron gules and argent, two crequiers and a mullet counterchanged does not conflict with Per chevron gules and argent, two mullets and a crequier counterchanged. Here, the type of each primary charge has been changed even though the two charge groups contain identical charge types.
• #A5E3
• ====A.5.E.3. Change of Number of the Primary Charge Group:====
• A new submission which substantially changes the number of charges in the primary charge group from a protected piece of armory does not conflict with it. A primary charge group with one, two, or three charges does not conflict with armory having a primary charge group with any other number or semy. A primary charge group with four or more charges, including semy of charges, is not clear of conflict under this rule with armory whose primary charge group has four or more charges, including semy of charges. Other changes in number do not qualify for this rule, but may qualify for a distinct change under [[8]] below.

	1	2	3	4+, Semy
1	Not clear	Clear	Clear	Clear
2	Clear	Not clear	Clear	Clear
3	Clear	Clear	Not clear	Clear
4+, Semy	Clear	Clear	Clear	Not clear

For example, Sable, a mascle Or does not conflict with any of: Sable, in fess two mascles Or; Sable, three mascles Or; Sable, four mascles two and two Or; Sable, five mascles in saltire Or; Sable, six mascles Or; or Sable, semy of mascles Or. Additionally, Per chevron Or and azure, two trees proper and a nesselblatt Or does not conflict with Per chevron Or and azure, a tree proper. In each case, the number of primary charges has substantially changed. Likewise, while the most common number of charges is partly determined by the ways in which a field is divided, Per chevron sable and Or, three annulets counterchanged is substantially changed from Quarterly sable and Or, four annulets counterchanged because the number of annulets has changed from three to four. For example, Gules, four boars two and two argent is not clear of conflict under this rule with Gules, semy of boars argent because both have four or more boars. Per fess Or and purpure, a rose proper and a vol Or is not clear of conflict under this rule with Per fess Or and purpure, a rose proper and a maunche Or because the number of charges remains two in both cases. #A5E4

A.5.E.4. Change of Arrangement of the Primary Charge Group:

A new submission which substantially changes the arrangement of the primary charges from a piece of protected armory does not conflict with. In cases where armory has an arrangement which is forced by the field, no difference can be obtained for arrangement of those charges. It does not matter whether the forced arrangement is in the registered item or the new submission. The following groups of arrangements are substantially different from each other, while arrangements listed in the same group are not substantially different from each other; other arrangements cannot apply this rule, but may still qualify for a distinct change under [[9]] below: in pale in fess in bend in bend sinister in saltire, and two and two, and crossed in saltire in cross two and one, and three, two, and one in orle and in annulo For example, Gules, in fess two lions argent does not conflict with Gules, in pale two lions argent or with Gules, in bend two lions argent or with Gules, in bend sinister two lions argent because the arrangement of the lions is substantially different. Per saltire Or and argent, in cross four suns gules does not conflict with Per saltire Or and argent, in saltire four suns gules because in cross is substantially different from in saltire. Argent, six mullets gules, three, two, and one does not conflict with Argent, eight mullets in orle gules because three, two, and one is substantially different from in orle. For example, Quarterly gules and argent, two ravens argent is not clear of conflict under this rule from Gules, in fess two ravens argent, because the in bend position of the ravens in the first item are forced there by the field – the white ravens could not overlap either of the white quarters. Similarly, Sable, in pale two anchors Or is not clear of conflict under this rule from Per fess sable and Or, in fess two anchors Or because the anchors in the second item are forced to the top half by the field - no yellow anchor could be on the yellow part of the field. #A5E5

A.5.E.5. Change of Posture of the Primary Charge Group:

A new submission which substantially changes the postures or orientations of each of the primary charges from a piece of protected armory does not conflict with it, when the posture of the individual charges are comparable. Charges which fall into separate categories of animate charges do not have comparable postures; animate charges and inanimate charges do not have comparable postures or orientations. These categories are listed below in this section. Postures and orientations not listed in this section cannot apply this rule, but may still qualify for a distinct change under A.5.G below. Primary charge groups which are not comparable under this rule may still qualify for a distinct change under A.5.G below. For example, Per fess gules and azure, a hound courant and a lymphad argent cannot apply this rule when being compared to Per fess gules and azure, a hound rampant and a dragon passant argent because, while the hounds are in different postures, a lymphad and a dragon do not have comparable postures or orientations. However, Per bend purpure and argent, a sword fesswise and an lion rampant counterchanged can apply this rule when being compared to Per bend purpure and argent, a sword palewise and a lion passant counterchanged because the corresponding charges have comparable postures and orientations. That is, the swords are comparable to each other and the lions are comparable to each other. #A5E5aa. Animate Charges: Animate charges are considered to fall into categories of posture based on their type. Within those categories, there are limited groups of postures which are each considered substantially different from other groups in that category. Charges in different categories do not have comparable postures for this rule. Quadrupeds, including winged ones such as dragons, have comparable postures, in the following groups: * rampant, segreant, salient, sejant erect, sejant, and the contourny versions of these * courant, passant, statant, couchant, dormant, and the contourny versions of these * affronty, sejant affronty, sejant erect affronty Birds have comparable postures, in the following groups: * displayed * close, naiant and the contourny versions of these * rising, striking, roussant, and the contourny versions of these Fish have comparable postures, in the following groups: * haurient, urinant * naiant, naiant contourny Insects and other creatures normally found in tergiant positions follow the same categories as inanimate charges: compact charges and long charges. Animate tergiant charges which are generally square or round in overall shape, such as butterflies, are compact charges and are not generally considered to have comparable postures or orientations for the purposes of this rule. Animate tergiant charges with a single long axis, such as dragonflies, are long charges and have limited groups of orientations which are each considered substantially different from other groups: * palewise, volant en arriere, palewise inverted * fesswise, fesswise contourny * bendwise, bendwise inverted * bendwise sinister, bendwise sinister inverted Other animate postures may be given substantial difference between comparable creatures on a case by case basis. For example, Gules, a rabbit passant Or does not conflict with Gules, a rabbit rampant Or or with Gules, a rabbit sejant affronty Or. Gules, a rabbit passant Or is not clear of conflict under this rule with Gules, a rabbit couchant contourny Or because passant and couchant contourny are in the same category. For example, Vert, three eagles displayed vair does not conflict with Vert, three eagles close vair. For example, Azure, a dragonfly volant en arriere does not conflict with Azure, a dragonfly tergiant fesswise. For example, Sable, a lion dormant argent is not clear of conflict under this rule with Sable, a lion statant argent or with Sable, a lion dormant contourny argent because these postures are not substantially different. For example, Argent, two bears combatant vert is not clear of conflict under this rule with Argent, 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 is not clear of conflict under this rule with Argent, a fish urinant gules because the reversal does not create a meaningful visual difference. For example, Purpure semy of stags courant Or is not clear of conflict under this rule with Purpure, six stags couchant Or because the postures are not substantially different. #A5E5bb. Inanimate Charges: Inanimate charges also may be divided into two categories: compact charges and long charges. Inanimate charges which are generally square or round in overall shape, such as pheons and crescents, are considered compact charges. Compact charges are not generally considered to have comparable postures or orientations for the purposes of this rule. Inanimate charges with a single long axis, such as swords and arrows, are considered long charges. Long charges have limited groups of orientations which are each considered substantially different from other groups: * palewise, palewise inverted * fesswise, fesswise reversed * bendwise, bendwise inverted/reversed * bendwise sinister, bendwise sinister inverted/reversed For example, Or, two straight trumpets palewise purpure does not conflict with Or, two straight trumpets fesswise purpure, but it is not clear of conflict under this rule with Or, two straight trumpets palewise inverted purpure.For example, Azure, a sword fesswise proper does not conflict with Azure, a sword bendwise inverted, but it is not clear of conflict under this rule with Azure, a sword fesswise reversed proper because the two orientations are not substantially different. For example, Counter-ermine, a tower bendwise sinister argent is not clear of conflict under this rule with Counter-ermine, a tower bendwise argent 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 inverted argent or with Gules, a mullet bendwise argent because the rotation of the compact mullet does not create a meaningful visual difference. #A5F

A.5.F. Standards for Difference through a Single Substantial Change of Field for Field-Primary Armory:

This rule applies only to field-primary armory; that is, armory which has no primary charge group, including armory with peripheral ordinaries, whether they are charged or uncharged. Field-primary armory is discussed further in Appendix I. A new field-primary submission does not conflict with a piece of protected field-primary armory 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, as described in A.5.E.1 above. Field-primary armory may also be clear of conflict by having two independent changes, including two independent changes to the field itself, as described in A.5.G.1 below. #A5F1

A.5.F.1. Substantial Change of Partition:

A new field-primary submission is clear of any other piece of protected field-primary armory when it substantially changes the partitioning of the field. #A5F1aa. Total Addition or Removal of Division: Any divided field has a substantially changed partition from any 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 with it. It would also be substantially different from Vair or Potent. #A5F1bb. Substantial Change of Direction of Division: A change in direction of the lines of partition creates a substantial change of partition. Most of the standard lines of division are substantially different. Any field division which differs only by the number of partitions in a single direction is not substantially different. The pairs per bend and bendy, per bend sinister and bendy sinister, per chevron and chevronelly, per fess and barry, and per pale and paly are not substantially different from the other half of their pair. Each of the above mentioned divisions is otherwise substantially different from all other divisions. Therefore, the pairs chevronelly and paly, per bend and per bend sinister, etc., are substantially different. For example, Per pale argent and gules is substantially different from Per fess argent and gules and from Per chevron argent and gules. However, Per pale argent and gules is not substantially different from Paly argent and gules. Per pall, and per pall inverted are clear of all other divisions. Quarterly and per saltire are substantially different from all two-part divisions and three-part divisions. They are also substantially different from all other four-part divisions (such as per pale and per chevron or per bend and per fess). The other four-part divisions are only substantially different from one another if they share no lines of division in common. All four-part divisions are substantially different from divisions that split the field evenly into more than four partitions. For example, per pale and per chevron is substantially difference from per fess and per bend sinister, as they have no lines of division in common.Checky is substantially different from all other fields. While checky is substantially different from all other grid-like partitions (i.e., those formed by two sets of parallel lines, such as lozengy and barry-bendy); these other grid-like partitions are not substantially different from one another. This is because they all create a general impression of lozenges of some sort. These grid-like partitions are all substantially different from partitions that split the field into six or fewer partitions. For example, Barry and per pale argent and vert is substantially different from Checky argent and vert, but is not clear of conflict under this rule from Bendy and per pale argent and vert. Gyronny (of any number of pieces) and party of six are substantially different form all other partions. Other multiply parted divisions (bendy, barry, etc., are discussed in the first paragraph of this section. Lines of division not mentioned here explicitly may be determined to be substantially different on a case by case basis. As a reference, these categories are all substantially different from each other: * per pale, paly * per fess, barry * per bend, bendy * per bend sinister, bendy sinister * per chevron, chevronelly * per chevron inverted, chevronelly inverted * gyronny (any number of pieces) * per pall * per pall inverted * per saltire * quarterly * other divisions into four equal parts(may have substantial difference between themselves, if they share no lines in common, such as per pale and per chevron compared to per fess and per bend sinister) * party of six * checky * lozengy and all other grid-like partitions (such as barry bendy and per pale and chevronelly #A5F2

A.5.F.2. Substantial Change of Tincture:

If the field of a new field-primary submission has no tinctures in common with the field of a protected piece of armory, they do not conflict. If a new submission with a field divided into two sections, three sections, quarterly, or per saltire has changed the tincture of each section of that field and each has at least one tincture on the field that the other does not, the two are substantially different and do not conflict. Furs are considered to be different from one another and from their base tincture. The addition of a field treatment is also a change of tincture. For example, Per chevron azure and gules and Per chevron sable and argent do not conflict, because the fields do not share a tincture. Per pale azure and gules and Per pale gules and argent do not conflict, because they are a type of field division with two sections, they have changed the tincture of each section, and each one has a tincture that differs. Similarly, Quarterly azure and gules, a bordure argent and Quarterly gules and Or a bordure argent do not conflict because they are four-section field divisions, they have changed the tincture of each section, and they each have a tincture that differs - the tincture of the bordure is not relevant. In contrast, Per pale azure and gules is not clear of conflict under this rule with Per pale gules and azure because neither has a tincture the other does not. Barry bendy vert and argent is not clear of conflict under this rule with Barry bendy sinister vert and Or because both share a tincture in the same section. Paly azure and gules is not clear of conflict under this rule with Paly gules and argent because they are divided into multiple sections (such that the order of the tinctures makes little visual difference) and they share a tincture. This is true even for Paly of four parts. Per bend ermine and azure is substantially different from Per bend erminois and gules and from Per bend argent and sable. Per fess argent and gules is substantially different from Per fess argent masoned gules and sable. In each case, the two pieces of armory have no tinctures in common. #A5G

A.5.G. Standards for Difference through Two Distinct Changes:

A distinct change (DC) is a change that was generally used as a cadency step or is similar in visual weight and meaning to changes that were used as cadency steps. Any new design which has at least two distinct changes from a protected design does not conflict with it. In older precedent, two elements which have a distinct change between them were sometimes said to be significantly different, or that there was a CD between them; in current precedent they are said to be distinctly changed, or that there is a DC between them. The types of changes which are substantially different when applied to primary charges under A.5.E above generally count as a distinct change when applied to other charge groups.When comparing two armorial designs, the procedures outlined in A.5.C above should be followed. For any given section below, only one distinct change (DC) can be derived from one type of change to a single charge group, no matter how radical the changes. Multiple distinct changes (DCs) may be derived from multiple types of changes to a single charge group or by changes to multiple charge groups. In general, a change to half the charge group (as defined in #A5C2d above) is sufficient for a distinct change. However, for a half which is defined as a special case in [[10]] above a maximum of one distinct change can be derived from all changes to that half, no matter how radical the changes. #A5G11. Changes to the Field: Distinctly changing the tinctures, direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or number of pieces in a partition of the field is one distinct change (DC). For armory with a primary charge group, at most one distinct change can come from changes to the field. For example, Lozengy Or and azure, a martlet gules has only one DC from Per pale indented argent and sable, a martlet gules, even though these fields are dramatically different. Field-primary armory can be cleared of conflict by a single substantial change to the field as described in A.5.F above, through two distinct changes under this rule, or through two distinct changes under any combination of rules in A.5.G, including changes to peripheral ordinaries and tertiary charges on them. #A5G1aa. Change of Tincture: If the tincture of at least half the field is changed, the fields will be considered different enough to be a distinct change (DC). There is a distinct change for swapping or rotating the tinctures of a field evenly divided into two, three, or four parts. There is not a distinct change for swapping the tinctures of a field divided into more than four parts. Furs and fields with field treatments are considered different tinctures from their underlying tincture and from other variants which share an underlying tincture. For example, each of the following has one DC from the other two: Argent, a tree vert, Ermine, a tree vert and Argent masoned sable, a tree vert. In each case, the field tincture is distinctly changed. Per pall sable, gules, and argent has one DC from both Per pall azure, gules, and Or and Per pall gules, argent, and sable. In each case at least half of the field tincture has been changed. For example, Quarterly argent and azure, a lucy gules has one DC from Quarterly azure and argent, a lucy gules. However, Checky argent and azure, a lucy gules does not have a DC from Checky azure and argent, a lucy gules. #A5G1bb. Change of Direction of Partition Lines: A change of direction of partition lines creates a distinct change (DC). The major single partition lines include: per bend, per bend sinister, per pale, per fess, per chevron, and per chevron inverted; a change from one to another (whether as single lines or multiple forms) is a distinct change. In addition, a change from any of these to per saltire, quarterly, gyronny (of any number of pieces), per pall, and per pall inverted, checky, and lozengy or a change between any of these is considered a distinct change. A change in direction of half the lines of a design gives a distinct change. In general, the addition, removal, or change of a partition line or group of partition lines that changes the organization of tinctures in ways that affect at least half the field will be considered a distinct change. For example, Per bend vair and gules is a DC from Per pale vair and gules. For example, Barry bendy sable and Or is a DC from Paly bendy sable and Or. For example, Barry wavy azure and argent is a DC from Per pale and barry wavy azure and argent. #A5G1cc. Change of Style of Partition Lines: All partition lines have a style, either plain (straight) or complex. A change of style of half the partition lines is a distinct change (DC). The types of complex lines which are distinctly different are discussed in Appendix M. For example, Per pale is a DC from Per pale embattled. For example, Barry wavy is a DC from Barry engrailed and from Barry (plain). For example, Quarterly is a DC from Quarterly per fess indented. #A5G1dd. Change of Number of Pieces: Changing the number of pieces into which the field is divided is a distinct change (DC). When considering the field as a whole, a field with one, two, three, or four pieces has a distinct change from armory with any other number, but above that there is no distinct change. When considering changes to only half of an already divided field, a half with one, two, or three pieces can have a distinct change from armory with a half of any other number of pieces, but any number beyond that is considered the same. For example, Per chevron gules and argent, a pale azure has one DC from Chevronelly gules and argent, a pale azure. Quarterly Or and sable, a fleur-de-lys gules has one DC from Checky Or and sable, a fleur-de-lys gules. Per pale azure and argent has one DC from Per pale azure and bendy argent and gules. In each case, the change of number of pieces is significant. For example, Gyronny of six ermine and vert, a roundel sable does not have a DC from Gyronny (of eight) ermine and vert, a roundel sable. There is no DC between Barry wavy of six argent and azure, a dolphin gules and the same design drawn with more traits, and we generally do not blazon that difference. The one exception is party of six, which is divided in a different pattern (effectively per fess and paly of three) and was seen as a distinct field division in period. Therefore, it has one DC from checky and designs that create large numbers of lozenges (such as paly bendy). However, it does not have a DC from designs such as Paly and per fess which create the same overall impression. #A5G1ee. Fieldless Armory: A piece of fieldless armory automatically has one distinct change (DC) from any other armory, fielded or fieldless. Tinctureless armory, as described in [[11]], is treated as fieldless armory for this purpose. However, no DC may be given for tincture of charges when comparing a tinctureless badge to any other design, including changes of tincture due to addition of lines of division. For example, (Fieldless) A mullet purpure has a DC for fieldlessness from (Fieldless) A mullet of six points purpure, but no other DCs. For example, Per fess gules and argent, a lion counterchanged has a DC for tincturelessness from (Tinctureless) A lion but no other DCs for tincture, even though one of the lions is divided per fess. #A5G22. Adding or Removing a Charge Group: Adding or removing a secondary, tertiary, or overall charge group is a distinct change (DC). The addition or removal of a primary charge gives greater difference and is described under [[12]] above. We count additions and removals in terms of the charge groups they affect, so that adding or removing multiple charges from a single group is only one distinct change. Adding or removing charges from multiple charge groups may give multiple distinct changes. For example, Sable, a ram argent has one DC from Sable, a ram argent and a chief Or and from Sable, a ram argent and overall a bend Or. In each case one charge group is removed. Sable, a ram argent and a chief, overall a bend Or has two DCs from Sable, a ram argent. Similarly, Sable, a ram argent and on a chief Or three roses sable also has two DCs from Sable, a ram argent. In each case two charge groups are added. Sable, a ram argent and a chief Or has two DCs from Sable, a ram argent and overall a bend Or, as a secondary charge group has been added and an overall charge group removed. As discussed in [[13]] above, when two pieces of armory have the same number of secondary charge groups, they may not be considered to have added or removed a secondary charge group, even if those secondary charge groups are different kinds of secondary groups. For example, Sable, a lion argent and a chief Or has only one DC from Sable, a lion argent and in canton a mullet Or, for the change in the type of the secondary charge (under [[14]]below), rather than one DC for removing the chief and a second DC for adding the mullet. As discussed in [[15]] above, tertiary charge groups are considered comparable for the purposes of this rule if they are on the same type of underlying charge group (primary, secondary, or overall). The addition or removal of comparable tertiary charge groups is a distinct change. For example, Sable, a cross flory argent mullety gules and a chief Or has two DCs from Sable, a cross flory argent and a chief Or mullety gules, because the tertiary charge group on the secondary charge has been removed and a tertiary charge group on the primary charge group added. These tertiary charge groups are not comparable. However, both of those designs have only one DC from Sable, a cross flory argent and a chief Or, as in each case only one tertiary charge group has been added. #A5G33. Change of Tincture Within a Charge Group: Distinctly changing the tinctures, direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or number of pieces into which a charge group is divided is a distinct change (DC). At most one distinct change may be derived from changes to tincture of a single charge group. However, no distinct change for tincture may be given under any section of this rule when comparing a tinctureless badge to another design, as described in [[16]] above. #A5G3aa. Tinctures: If the tincture of at least half the charge group is changed, the charge group will be considered different. There is a distinct change (DC) for swapping or rotating the tinctures of a charge group evenly divided into two, three, or four parts. There is not a distinct change for reversing the tinctures of a charge group divided into more than four parts. Furs and field treatments are considered different from their underlying tincture. For example, Azure, a cross crosslet argent has one DC from Azure, a cross crosslet per pale argent and gules. Per fess gules and argent, an annulet counterchanged has one DC from Per fess gules and argent, an annulet counterchanged argent and sable; the first example is a shorthand for Per fess gules and argent, an annulet per fess argent and gules. Each of the following is a DC from the other two: Vert, a tree argent; Vert, a tree ermine; Vert, a tree argent masoned sable. For example, Gules, a fess argent between three lions quarterly argent and azure has one DC from Gules, a fess argent between three lions quarterly azure and argent, because the tinctures have been swapped. However, Gules, a fess argent between three lions checky argent and azure does not have a DC from Gules, a fess argent between three lions checky azure and argent, because the lions are divided into more than four parts. Certain tincture changes are considered part of the type of the charge and do not contribute to difference. Charges such as towers and castles that are made of masonry are not considered to be different when drawn with or without masoning, though fields and charges that are not made of masonry are. Some creatures, such as panthers and yales, are often but not always spotted; the absence or presence of these spots does not contribute to difference, though the addition of roundels to another type of charge is considered to be adding a tertiary charge group. #A5G3bb. Direction of Partition Lines: A change of direction of partition creates a distinct change (DC). The major single partition lines include: per bend, per bend sinister, per pale, per fess, per chevron, and per chevron inverted. A change from one to another (whether as single lines or multiple forms) is a distinct change . In addition, a change from any of these to per saltire, quarterly, gyronny (of any number of pieces), per pall, per pall inverted, checky, and lozengy or a change between any of these is considered a distinct change. A change in direction of half the lines of a design gives a distinct change. In general, the addition, removal, or change of a partition line or group of partition lines that changes organization of tinctures in ways that affect half the tincture will be considered a distinct change. For example, the following all have one DC from each other: per bend argent and sable, per pale argent and sable, and lozengy argent and sable. The change from barry bendy to paly barry is a DC. There is a DC between barry wavy azure and argent and per pale and barry wavy azure and argent. #A5G3cc. Style of Partition Lines: All partition lines have a style, either plain (straight) or complex. A change of style of half the partition lines is a distinct change (DC). The types of complex lines which are distinctly different are discussed in Appendix M. #A3G3dd. Number of Pieces: Changing the number of pieces into which the charge is divided is a distinct change (DC). When considering the overall number of pieces, more than four pieces are considered the same, but smaller numbers are considered different. Alternately, changes that only affect half of an already divided charge can give a distinct change; in that case, more than three pieces are considered the same. For example, there is a DC between a mullet per chevron gules and argent and a mullet chevronelly gules and argent. There is a DC between an elephant quarterly Or and sable and an elephant checky Or and sable. In each case, the change of number of pieces is significant. A roundel gyronny of six ermine and vert is not a DC from a roundel gyronny (of eight) ermine and vert. Barry wavy of six argent and azure is not a DC the same design drawn with more traits, nor do we blazon such a distinction. #A5G44. Change of Type Within a Charge Group: The change in type of at least half of a charge group is a distinct change (DC). Types of charges considered distinct in period are considered distinctly changed. A charge that was not used in period armory will be considered different in type from another charge if their shapes are distinctly changed. Additional discussion of difference between some specific charges can be found in Appendix M. For example, there is a DC for the change from a lion to a heraldic tyger, from a mullet of five points to a sun, or from an oak tree to a pine tree (because of their very different shapes). A claymore is distinctly changed from an axe but not from a rapier. Only one distinct change will be given for change of type of a single charge group, though multiple distinct changes can be given for changes of type of multiple charge groups. For example, Per chevron gules and argent, a chevron sable between two roundels and a sun counterchanged is only one DC from Per chevron gules and argent, a chevron sable between two tygers and a mullet counterchanged. The charges on both sides of the chevron are in a single charge group. However, Per chevron gules and argent, a chevron sable semy-de-lys argent between two roundels and a sun counterchanged is two DCs away from Per chevron gules and argent, a chevron sable crusilly argent between two tygers and a mullet counterchanged. Here, the type of charges in two separate charge groups is changed. The edges of ordinaries and similar geometric charges have a style, either plain (straight) or complex. These styles are part of the type of the charge; thus, a change to the style of the edge of an ordinary or similar charge is a distinct change. The types of complex lines which are distinctly different are discussed in Appendix M. For example, the change from a pale wavy to a pale embattled is one DC, as is the change from a bordure to a bordure nebuly. Changing from a chief wavy to a lozenge embattled is also one DC; the changes from a chief to a lozenge and from wavy to embattled edge are considered a single change of type. #A5G55. Change of Number Within a Charge Group: Distinctly changing the number of charges in any charge group is one distinct change (DC). A charge group with one, two, three, four, and five charges is a distinct change from groups of any other numbers. A charge group with six or more charges, including semy of charges, is not a distinct change from a group of any number within this size category. Changes to independent charge groups may give multiple distinct changes. Even when the number of charges is fixed by their type, there is a distinct change for changing the number under this rule. || || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 5 || 6 + || Semy || || 1 || No DC || DC || DC || DC || DC || DC || DC || || 2 || DC || No DC || DC || DC || DC || DC || DC || || 3 || DC || DC || No DC || DC || DC || DC || DC || || 4 || DC || DC || DC || No DC || DC || DC || DC || || 5 || DC || DC || DC || DC || No DC || DC || DC || || 6 + || DC || DC || DC || DC || DC || No DC || No DC || || Semy || DC || DC || DC || DC || DC || No DC || No DC || For example, there is a DC between Gules, a talbot statant and in chief a fleur-de-lis argent and Gules semy-de-lis, a talbot statant argent because the number in the secondary charge group has been distinctly changed. There are two DCs between Argent, a chief azure and Argent, flaunches azure, one for change of type (under [[17]]) and a second for change of number of the secondary charge group. This is true even though chiefs always appear singly and flaunches always appear in pairs. For example, while the most common number of charges is partly determined by the ways in which a field is divided, there are two DCs between Per chevron sable and Or, a sexfoil argent between three annulets counterchanged and Quarterly sable and Or, a sexfoil argent between four annulets counterchanged, one for the change of the field (under [[18]]) and a second for the change in number of the secondary charge group. #A5G66. Change of Arrangement Within a Charge Group: Changing the arrangement of a group of charges is generally a distinct change (DC). Arrangement in this rule refers both to the relative positions of the charges (in pale, two and one, etc.) and to their positions on the field (in canton, in base). Arrangement may also apply in the case of a tertiary charge group which only appears on some charges within a charge group with multiple charges. Only one distinct change may be derived from changes to arrangement of a single charge group, though multiple distinct changes can be given for independent changes of arrangement to multiple charge groups. Changes to other parts of the design frequently cause changes to the arrangement of charge groups. We call these changes forced; there is no distinct change for a forced change of arrangement. A change to the primary charge group can force the change of arrangement of a secondary charge group. When a type of a charge requires a specific arrangement, there is no distinct change for arrangement when the type of charge is changed. For example, changing from Argent, a fess between two unicorns within bordure purpure to Argent, a pale between two unicorns within a bordure purpure requires that the unicorns move from in pale to in fess. As the change is forced, there is not a DC for the change in arrangement of the unicorns. For example, there is no DC for change in arrangement between any of: Per pale gules and sable, a clarion and a bordure Or, Per pale gules and sable, a clarion and a base Or, and Per pale gules and sable, a clarion and in chief a garb Or. The position for the base and bordure are forced by their type of charge. Changes in tincture of a divided field or the tincture of a charge group can force the charges into different positions on the field. These forced changes are also not worth a distinct change. For example, there is no DC for change in arrangement between Gules, a goat argent between three lozenges Or and Per fess gules and Or, a goat argent and in chief three lozenges Or. There is no DC for the arrangement of the lozenges, because the lozenges in the second design may not be in the center of the field, because they share a tincture with the bottom half of the field. For example, there would also be no DC for change in arrangement between Gules, in fess three lozenges Or and Per fess gules and Or, in canton three lozenges two and one Or. Even though the relative arrangements are different, the lozenges in the second design cannot be in the same arrangement as in the first design. However, there is a DC for change in arrangement between Gules, in fess three lozenges Or to Per fess gules and argent, in chief three lozenges Or, because the lozenges Or could be in the center of a neutral field with which they do not share a tincture. Changes in number can also cause a change in arrangement. In general, changes in arrangement only count for difference if the two charge groups are able to have identical arrangements but don't. You may determine whether two charge groups have comparable arrangements by referring to Appendix K, which lists the standard arrangements for charge groups of different numbers. If the two charge groups (based on the number of charges within them) can both take on the arrangement the other is in, then the arrangements are said to be comparable and a distinct change can be given for the difference between them. For example, two charges in pale and three charges in fess have a distinct change for difference in arrangement, but neither has a distinct change for arrangement against a single central charge. In general, tertiary charges are unlikely to have changes in arrangement, because the shape of the charge they are on limits their placement. One exception to this is a charge group with multiple charges, only one of which has a tertiary charge group on it. In this case, there may be a distinct change for changing which portion of the charge group has the tertiary. For example, Potent, in pale two roundels gules, the one in chief charged with an eagle Or has one DC from Potent, in pale two roundels gules, the one in base charged with an eagle Or. #A5G77. Change of Posture or Orientation Within a Charge Group: Animate charges have a posture, which includes their stance, position of limbs, facing, etc.; inanimate charges have an orientation which includes their radial orientation and facing. Distinctly changing the posture or orientation of half of the charges in any charge group, when the charges are comparable, is one distinct change (DC). Only one distinct change can be derived from the changes in posture and/or orientation of any given charge group, though multiple distinct changes can be given for independent changes of posture or orientation to multiple charge groups. Multiple changes to the posture or orientation of the same charges may not be counted separately. Some charges, such as roundels, do not have a posture or orientation to be compared. In general, changes of position and/or orientation that considerably change the appearance of a single type of charge will count for a distinct change. Animate charges do not have comparable postures with inanimate charges. A partial list of postures and orientations that are distinct can be seen in Appendix L. For example, changing a sword fesswise to a sword palewise or a lion rampant to a lion passant is one DC.Similarly, a lion passant bendwise is only one DC from a lion couchant contourny. For example, while a lion passant may be mostly fesswise, there is not a DC for change of posture between a lion passant and a sword palewise. #A5G7aa. Change of Posture for Animate Charges: Animate charges are considered to fall into categories by the type of animal for posture. Quadrupeds have comparable postures, birds have comparable postures, insects and other creatures normally found in tergiant positions have comparable postures, fish have comparable postures. Animate charges which fall into separate categories do not have comparable postures. For example, there is not a DC for change of posture between a griffin segreant and an eagle displayed, although one is to dexter and the other affronty, because while a griffin could be described as displayed, an eagle is unable to be segreant, which is the equivalent of rampant for winged quadrupeds. To count as a distinct change, a change of posture or orientation among comparable charges must distinctly change the appearance of a charge. For animate charges, a change in the position of the head or tail is not significant; nor is the change from statant to passant, which essentially moves only one leg. Changing from passant to couchant, however, visually removes the legs from the bottom of the charge and is considered significant. Changes that distinctly affect the number of extended wings (from wings folded to raised, or from wings seen on one side of the body to both sides) are sufficient for a distinct change. Changes which alter the orientation of the body or direction of facing are generally significant, though some very different descriptions may result in a similar appearance, such as passant bendwise and rampant. Also, some postures, such as rampant, have a wide range of acceptable depictions which do not count for difference. Groups of animate charges or their parts may have comparable postures/orientations as a group even if their individual postures are not comparable. For example, there is a distinct change between two groups of animate charges or their parts that can be said to be addorsed versus respectant. For example, there is a DC for orientation between two lions combatant and two hawks addorsed, even though a lion cannot be close and hawks cannot be rampant. There is a DC for orientation between either of those and two griffin's heads (both to dexter). #A5G7bb. Change of Posture for Non-Identical Inanimate Charges: Inanimate charges also may be divided into two categories: compact charges and long charges. Inanimate charges which fall into separate categories do not have comparable postures. Compact charges are generally square or round, such as crescents and mullets. Non-identical compact inanimate charges such as pheons and crescents are not generally considered to have comparable postures or orientations. Some compact inanimate charges, like roses and mullets, are not considered to have meaningful orientations. For example, whether a five-pointed mullet has a point to base or chief is blazonable, but does not give a distinct change (DC). For example, there is not a DC for orientation between a crescent and a pheon bendwise. Inanimate charges with a long axis, like swords and arrows, are considered to have some comparable orientations: we give a distinct change for orientations that change the direction of the long axis of the charge (palewise, fesswise, bendwise, bendwise sinister), but not those that change the direction of the point or head. For example, there is not a DC for orientation between an arrow fesswise and a sword fesswise, even though each has the point in a different direction. But there is a DC for orientation between an arrow palewise and a sword fesswise. #A5G7cc. Change of Orientation for Identical Inanimate Charges: When comparing two identical types of inanimate charges in different orientations, additional differences in posture can also be granted a distinct change (DC). When the compared charges are identical, compact charges that have clearly distinguished directionality can receive a distinct change for differences in facing. Long charges may receive a distinct change for reversing their direction when the ends are easily distinguished. More details may be found in Appendix L. For example, crescents, escallops, and pheons are all compact inanimate charges but also have a distinguishable top and bottom. Thus, there is a DC for orientation between an escallop and an escallop inverted and between a crescent and an increscent and a decrescent. For example, axes have easily distinguished ends. Thus, there is a DC for orientation between an axe fesswise and an axe fesswise reversed. However, bows and staves do not have different ends. Thus, there is no DC for orientation between a bow and a bow inverted (and they would likely both be simply blazoned as a bow, since the inversion would not be meaningful). #A5H

A.5.H. Registration with Permission to Conflict: The owner of a piece of armory may grant permission to conflict to a new submission. Such permission may be granted either individually through a letter of permission to conflict or universally through a blanket letter of permission to conflict.

Any blazonable change is sufficient to allow the registration of armory with a letter of permission to conflict. A blanket letter of permission to conflict must specify the level of conflict allowed; it may allow registration of armory either with any blazonable change or which has only one distinct change. A submission identical to the registered armory will not be registered even with permission to conflict. Giving permission does not require that the individual have a legal relationship with the person granting permission. You can give a stranger permission to have armory that appears to be the armory of your child, parent, spouse, etc..

---