help with soul exchange

[Sakura Sakamoto]

i've beeen thinking about using soul exchange for a while
but me and my friends can't decide if i need a monster on my
of the field to us it.

 

[Digital Jedi]

How is the text "if you would Tribute a monster on your side of the field" any indication that you have to have a monster on your side of the field?

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

The card text is just there for the halibut...

It is the card text taht contradicts the rulings, and contradicst how the card works, if anything.

Always go by the rulings.

EDIT:
"If you would"

Is not proper grammar.

How can you argue about a card text if the card text isn't "right"?

 

[masterwoo0]

Well, if this is the case then the text should read "if you want to use a monster as a tribute for a card effect or summon, you can select and use a monster on your opponent's side of the field." But since it does not state that, I will stand by my stance that you MUST have a monster on your side of the field before you can use the effect of Soul Exchange, regardless. The rulings totally contradict the card text and leads me to believe that rulings that contradict card text only suit their own purposes to make the card work how they want rather than the way the card was meant to be used.

And you may believe whatever makes you feel better, as long as you follow the ruling given above until it is either changed to agree with your logic, or, your logic is changed to agree with the ruling.

 

[HorusMaster]

The card text is just there for the halibut...

It is the card text taht contradicts the rulings, and contradicst how the card works, if anything.

Always go by the rulings.

EDIT:
"If you would"

Is not proper grammar.

How can you argue about a card text if the card text isn't "right"?

"If you would" is not considered proper grammar? What language and sentence structure did they teach at your school?
If you would normally use your monster as a tribute implies that you have a monster that you are able to tribute but instead, you can use your opponent's monster. Again, how can you get around the fact that you need to have a monster on the field?
And why hasn't Konami issued an errata and ruling on this card?

 

[masterwoo0]

"If you would" is not considered proper grammar? What language and sentence structure did they teach at your school?
If you would normally use your monster as a tribute implies that you have a monster that you are able to tribute but instead, you can use your opponent's monster. Again, how can you get around the fact that you need to have a monster on the field?
And why hasn't Konami issued an errata and ruling on this card?

Would you rather it say, "if your opponent would..."?

How else do you tribute a monster? Your opponent can't do it for you.

"If YOU would tribute a monster (but you can't, cause you dont have one), you may use your opponents monster in place of your monster"

 

[HorusMaster]

Would you rather it say, "if your opponent would..."?

How else do you tribute a monster? Your opponent can't do it for you.

"If YOU would tribute a monster (but you can't, cause you dont have one), you may use your opponents monster in place of your monster"

It states, "If you would tribute a monster on YOUR SIDE OF THE FIELD (implies you HAVE a monster on YOUR SIDE OF THE FIELD), you can tribute your opponent's monster instead." Again, it implies that a monster EXISTS on your side of the field to tribute but you can use your opponent's instead.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

"If you would" is not considered proper grammar? What language and sentence structure did they teach at your school?
If you would normally use your monster as a tribute implies that you have a monster that you are able to tribute but instead, you can use your opponent's monster. Again, how can you get around the fact that you need to have a monster on the field?
And why hasn't Konami issued an errata and ruling on this card?

The card text on Soul Exchange is a subjunctive clause, and thus needs "were."

 

[masterwoo0]

It states, "If you would tribute a monster on YOUR SIDE OF THE FIELD (implies you HAVE a monster on YOUR SIDE OF THE FIELD), you can tribute your opponent's monster instead." Again, it implies that a monster EXISTS on your side of the field to tribute but you can use your opponent's instead.

No, YOU are implying that it is saying that you must have a monster. Remember, there isnt even a ruling for Soul Exchange that says that.

The only thing Soul Exchange says very clearly is, you dont have to tribute a monster of "yours".

 

[Digital Jedi]

The card has already been errated. And it has always worked the way it does.

DaGuy, "If you would" is not improper grammar.

Horus,

"If you would pay $2.50 to rent a video, you may pay $1.00 dollars instead." Does that imply you have to have $2.50?

"If you would buy groceries from the grocery store, you may order them online instead" Does that mean you have to go to the Grocery store?

"If you would buy Cheerios, you may buy the generic brand instead." Does that mean you have to go grab the Cheerios box?

"If you would do something you may do something else. The "if" in that sentence shows that you don't even have to use the effect once it resolves, much less insist that you have a monster.

 

[HorusMaster]

No, YOU are implying that it is saying that you must have a monster. Remember, there isnt even a ruling for Soul Exchange that says that.

The only thing Soul Exchange says very clearly is, you dont have to tribute a monster of "yours".

Then an Errata needs to be issued with more concise clarification of the card text. It is somewhat like this in my mind-

Friday night you go to the movies. If you would "normally" (I know it's not in the card text) use your money for the movie, this time you can keep your money in your pocket and this one time, use your friend's money. But you can't buy popcorn with your money.

Now, picture it with monsters. This turn, rather than using your monster for a tribute, use your opponent's monster instead but you can't attack this turn. Again, the implication is that you would normally use your monster for the tribute and as such, the monster exists on your side of the field.

 

[masterwoo0]

The card has already been errated. And it has always worked the way it does.

"If you would do something you may do something else. The "if" in that sentence shows that you don't even have to use the effect once it resolves, much less insist that you have a monster.

I think he is already using that philosophy DJ.

"If he would choose to believe you, he chooses not to."

 

[HorusMaster]

I think he is already using that philosophy DJ.

"If he would choose to believe you, he chooses not to."

I would choose to believe that the ruling exists and that the true intent of the card is to use your opponent's monster for a tribute or tribute summon, BUT I would also choose to believe that the card text is in error as stated versus what the intent and rulings are regarding this card. I always have and will continue to follow what UDE releases as far as rulings go but I would also like to see a more concise card text that reflects accurately what the intention of the card is intended to be.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Then an Errata needs to be issued with more concise clarification of the card text. It is somewhat like this in my mind-

Friday night you go to the movies. If you would "normally" (I know it's not in the card text) use your money for the movie, this time you can keep your money in your pocket and this one time, use your friend's money. But you can't buy popcorn with your money.

Now, picture it with monsters. This turn, rather than using your monster for a tribute, use your opponent's monster instead but you can't attack this turn. Again, the implication is that you would normally use your monster for the tribute and as such, the monster exists on your side of the field.

And if you knew ahead of time your friend was paying for the movie would you still have to bring money? Soul Exchange is your friend calling you and telling you at that he's paying for the move tonight.


Woo0, ROFL

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

DaGuy, "If you would" is not improper grammar.

"If you would pay $2.50 to rent a video, you may pay $1.00 dollars instead." Does that imply you have to have $2.50?

Incorrect, because as soon as you pay 1$ you are no longer paying $2.50, and therefore you no longer satisfy the "if" condition.

But when using an if you need "were" in the "if" clause. Would is in the conditional(result) clause.

If you were to pay with a $10 bill, you would get 37 cents change

 

[Digital Jedi]

Incorrect, because as soon as you pay 1$ you are no longer paying $2.50, and therefore you no longer satisfy the "if" condition.

But when using an if you need "were" in the "if" clause. Would is in the conditional(result) clause.

If you were to pay with a $10 bill, you would get 37 cents change

And why are you completely ignoring the use of the word "instead"?

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

And why are you completely ignoring the use of the word "instead"?

I'm not ignoring it.

As soon as you pay 1$ instead you're not paying 2.50$, and since you're not paying 2.50 you can no longer pay 1$ instead of 2.50

"instead" is actually causing the paradoxal loop here.

(As it would be still possible to pay $1, but it's impossible to pay 1$ instead)

 

[Digital Jedi]

I'm not ignoring it.

As soon as you pay 1$ instead you're not paying 2.50$, and since you're not paying 2.50 you can no longer pay 1$ instead of 2.50

"instead" is actually causing the paradoxal loop here.

(As it would be still possible to pay $1, but it's impossible to pay 1$ instead)

Your using the wrong use of the phrase "if you would". "If you would" is not an event that has happened yet. It is an event that would/could happen. That would ordinarily happen.

 

[slither]

At the extent of sounding redundant =P, "would" unlike "could" shows more of a certainty, "could" is something that it might be done if wished to be done.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Your using the wrong use of the phrase "if you would". "If you would" is not an event that has happened yet. It is an event that would/could happen. That would ordinarily happen.

When using "if" you don't look at the other part of the sentence until the if-clause is true.

So until the if part happens, you don't do anything else.

If (and only if) I raise my hand, say hello.

You can't say hello until i raise my hand.

 

[Digital Jedi]

When using "if" you don't look at the other part of the sentence until the if-clause is true.

So until the if part happens, you don't do anything else.

If (and only if) I raise my hand, say hello.

You can't say hello until i raise my hand.

Which is taking technicality too far. "If I would do something" is clear intent. Grammatically it is correct in context to the intent. Grammar is only one part technicality. Intention is the other part and the most important part of any language. If you ignore intent, then you ignore meaning.