What do we mean when we say that a device is too complex? Complexity covers a fair bit of ground.
Part VIII of the rules for submission defines Compatible
Armorial Style. Section 1, Armorial Simplicity defines simplicity.
I quote the headings:
VIII.1. Armorial Simplicity - All armory must be
simple in design.
VIII.1.a. Tincture and Charge Limit- Armory must
use a limited number of tinctures and types of charges.
VIII.1.b. Armorial Balance - Armory must arrange
all elements coherently in a balanced design.
VIII.1.c. Armorial Depth - Armory may not employ
depth of field as a design element.
VIII.1.c.i. Perspective - Charges may only be
drawn in perspective if they were so depicted in period armory.
VIII.1.c.ii. Layer Limit - Designs may not be
excessively layered.
VIII.1. Armorial Simplicity - All armory must
be simple in design.
VIII.1.a. Tincture and Charge Limit- Armory must
use a limited number of tinctures and types of charges.
[As the number of tinctures involved in a device increases, the number of types of charges should decrease. In no case should the number of different tinctures of types of charges be so great as to eliminate the visual impact of any single design element. As a rule of thumb, the total of the number of tinctures plus the number of types of charges in a design should not exceed eight. As another guideline, three or more types of charges should not be used in the same group.]
This rule essentially says that busy armory is no good. There are two guidelines in the notes.
The first says to keep the number of tinctures and charge types down.
Per bend checky azure and argent and argent, in bend a hammer Or and an anvil sable, on a chief embattled vert, a quill pen Or. Has five tinctures (azure, argent, Or, sable, and vert), and four types of charges (hammer, anvil, chief, quill pen). This adds up to nine, which exceeds eight. To compound the problem, the combination of the checky field with the embattled chief creates visual tension. If the chief were plain and the Or charges were argent, the count would be eight, and the device would probably be acceptable, although right at the edge.
The second guideline is more familiar as the "Slot Machine Rule", which was discussed in an earlier lesson.
Counterchanging increases complexity, and thus should not be used with complex fields. For example, Gyronny lozengy gules and Or and vair, a mascle throughout counterchanged. This illustrates this point clearly. Counterchanging should not divide the charge into more than a few pieces.
VIII.1.b. Armorial Balance - Armory must arrange all elements coherently in a balanced design.
[Period armory usually places the primary elements of the design in a static arrangement, such as a single charge in the center of the field or three identical charges on an escutcheon. More complex designs frequently include a central focal point around which other charges are placed, like a chevron between three charges, but the design remains static and balanced. Designs that are unbalanced, or that create an impression of motion, are not compatible with period style.]
The design should have a central focus, and should appear as if it could stay there forever without falling over or down.
Per fess gules and Or, three bezants in pale. Is unbalanced badly. The three bezants are all on the left side of the shield and there is nothing on the right side to balance them. Adding three torteaux (red roundels) on the sinister side would balance this and turn it into an outstanding design.
Vert, in sinister a wolf statant argent. Is just as unbalanced. The single charge off to one side provides no central focus. Add another wolf on the dexter, or move the one to the center.
Also, the drawing style should not suggest that the object is moving or about to leap out of the shield.
I highly recommend Mistress Hilary of Serendip's article The Philosophical Roots of Heraldic Design, printed in the Spring 1983 Tournaments Illuminated (#66) and the Atlantian Herald's Handbook.
VIII.1.c. Armorial Depth - Armory may not employ depth of field as a design element.
VIII.1.c.i. Perspective - Charges may only be drawn
in perspective if they were so depicted in period armory.
[A pair of dice may be drawn in perspective since
they were routinely drawn that way in period armory to show the pips. A
bear, dolphin, or castle should not be drawn in three dimensions, but should
appear only in its standard, flat heraldic form.]
Dice, drums, and tambourines are normally drawn in perspective. Baskets, bowls, bellows, crowns, and the like are often drawn with just enough perspective so that you can identify the object. Otherwise, charges have no depth at all.
VIII.1.c.ii. Layer Limit - Designs may not be excessively layered.
[All charges should be placed either directly on the field or entirely on other charges that lie on the field.]
This means that there can normally be no more than three layers in a design. Exceptions are very rare.
Purpure, on a bend between two mullets argent, three escallops gules, each charged with a plate. Has excessive layering. The plates on the escallops on the bend on the field is four layers.
Azure, a fess argent, overall on an owl Or, a cross
patonce gules. Is not excessively layered. The cross is on a charge
that lies on the field, namely the owl, which is overall and thus lies
(partially) on the field.
Try your hand at some exercises.
For each device, is it too complex? If so, why?
1. Azure, on a saltire argent between four escutcheons Or, goutty de sang, five golpes (roundels purpure).
2. Sable, an escallop Or and on a chief argent, three billets sable, fretty Or.
3. (Fieldless) A galley in trian aspect Or. (Trian aspect is a three-quarter view)
4. Gules, a pale Or between three anvils in pale argent and a spear Or.
5. Paly Or and sable, a bend counterchanged.
6. Checky sable and argent, a saltire counterchanged.
7. (Fieldless) An elephant argent, on its back a blanket
barry wavy vert and argent charged with a lion's paw escallop Or.