Rules Tip of the Day: You count the number of Zuberas that have gone to the graveyard when the triggered ability form one of the Zuberas from Champions of Kamigawa resolve, not when the ability triggers and goes on the stack. This means that if you can cause more Zuberas to go to the graveyard before the first triggered ability resolve, the Zubera death count and the effect will increase.

Q: I have one more card in my hand than my opponent, and Okina Nightwatch, which is the only creature in play. I play Prophetic Bolt, making my hand size the same as my opponent, and target my Nightwatch because I want to filter through the top of my deck. Will my Nightwatch die?

A: No. When Prophetic Bolt resolves it will deal four points of damage to the Nightwatch. Before state-based effects are checked, you will look at the top four cards in your library and then put one in your hand. This means that when the Bolt has finished resolving and state-based effects are checked you will have more cards in your hand then your opponent and the Nightwatch will not have lethal damage on it.

Q: I'd like to know if legendary enchantments could be tapped to untap Honor-Worn Shaku?

A: Yes, you can tap any Legendary permanent you control to untap Honor-Worn Shaku, including Legendary enchantments.

Q: I have Manriki-Gusari equipped to Shape Stealer and I attack with it. My friend blocks with Gnarled Mass. What will be Shape Stealer's P/T now? Does it get Manriki-Gusari's +1/+2 bonus or just become 3/3 creature?

A: It will be a 3/3. The bonus from the Manriki-Gursari will be applied before ability that sets the power and toughness of the Shape Stealer. Because of this it will be Manriki-Gusari's bonus will be effectively negated.

Q: My opponent plays Threads of Disloyalty targeting my Kami of Ancient Law when there are no enchantments in play. Will I get the chance to sacrifice the Kami of Ancient Law and destroy the Threads of Disloyalty?

A: No. When Threads of Disloyalty resolves, your opponent will gain control of the enchanted Kami. By the time you are able to play any spells or abilities, the Kami will not be under your control and you will be unable to use its ability.

Q: I have Plains in play enchanted with Genju of Fields. I make it creature, and opponent plays Otherwordly Journey on it. At the end of turn I get land with +1/+1 counter on it. Next turn I play another Genju of Fields on it, and activate it twice. What power/toughness will be my creature? 2/5 or 3/6?

A: This animated plains will be a 3/6 creature. The bonus from the +1/+1 counter is applied after the power and toughness setting that occurs when this land becomes animated.

Q: I have Necropotence in play and my opponent controls Megrim. If I have to discard a card it is removed from the game instead. What I want to know is will Megrim still trigger?

A: No, because Necropotence replaces the entire action of discarding, Megrim will not trigger. You may have fewer cards in your hand, but as the game sees it you did not discard them.

Q: At a local T1 tournament we had a situation in a match with U/w Fish vs Control Slaver. In a game, the Fish player played Meddling Mage and named Thirst. A few turns later, the Control Slaver player went to play Thirst for Knowledge, claiming that the other player had named the card Thirst (since Thirst is a real card). The player argued that he was clearly playing blue and Thirst was a blue card and in theory he could have played it. The judge however ruled that the player must have meant Thirst for Knowledge and the existence of a card named Thirst had no relevance since its an "unplayable" card.

My question is was the judge right to make this ruling since the player was trying to get around what the player obviously intended, or is it not up to the judges to determine what is 'unplayable' and the Fish player should have been more careful to say the entire name of the card?

A: The issue involved in this situation is one of intent. While it seems pretty clear what the Fish player intended to name Thirst for Knowledge, I'd want to know what the Control Slaver player perceived as his intention. Did he actually believe that the Fish player intended to choose Thirst as the card named for Meddling Mage's effect? Or did he think he intended to choose Thirst of Knowledge and used a nickname to choose it? If the Control Slaver player realized that the Fish player did intend to name Thirst for Knowledge and decided to take advantage of the fact that he did not state the last two words of the card name, then he is being unsporting, if not actually cheating (I'd say he's cheating--Sheldon). I agree with your assessment, that this Control Slaver was trying to skirt what was obviously intended. While I think it's unfortunate that the presiding judge made his ruling by referring to the "playability' of a card, he was pretty much saying what I have above; that the Fish player obviously intended to name Thirst for Knowledge and that the Control Slaver player knows this.

For further background on my ruling here and the use of player intent when adjudicating rules disputes, check out the article "Ruling by Intent" by level 3 judge Justus Rönnau at the following address on the DCI Judge web page.