text:
Can I make a monster indestructible?
Let's say I have a monster on the field. This is my best card, and I want to make it untouchable by anything.
An example would be a monster who's effect can't be negated, and is not affected by card effects, equipped with an equip card that means it cannot be destroyed by battle, and that card cannot be destroyed either.
Are there any scenarios that allow this possibility?

Indestructible: Cannot be removed from the field by any means.

Does this card belong to a specific archetype? Or is it more like how to make untouchable any card.

@DarkCygnus To all. I play against many archetypes including Cyber Dragons and Lightsworns

I see, and is this "best card" you have a specific one (name?)

@DarkCygnus nope. My necessary to think of one, but probably Divine Dragon Knight Felegrand

Do you have discord?

We can discuss in chat if you like :)

Other effects you may want to be aware of: Opponent taking control over your Monster/tributing it/using it as Fusion/Synchro/XYZ material. The last 3 options are not even card effects. And if your Monster "cannot be used as XYZ material" they will come up with a new monster type, just like "cannot be used as Synchro material" became less a bother when XYZ came out.

For what definition of destroyed? The game's definition or "anything that will make you lose the monster as currently on the field"? The latter would include all of, but not just the following: return to your hand, loss of control to your opponent, any 'send to the graveyard' effect, any 'send to the graveyard' cost.

The answer is still "No." and companies wanting to make money is a basic reference you yourself declared needing no citation. Accept it and don't be a sore loser!

So, when you say "make a monster indestructible" per your definition of indestructible, what are the logical boundaries of this? I ask because it sounds like what you're after is more accurately a "non-contestable board state." I.e., not only is "the monster" unable to be removed, but neither are any of the cards protecting it. Do you want the monster to specifically be unaffected when the opponent tries to remove it, or is it acceptable to remove the opponents' options entirely? Are locks acceptable? If not, why are they unacceptable? What are the restrictions, if any, on proposed solutions?

@squid I think OP is interested in 1 monster card being unaffected/indestructible by all mean, something like tributing Hardened Armed Dragon with his fav monster. Or maybe he want Konami to produce new card like Holactie that is unaffected/indestructible/unremovable by all mean but without the winning condition. LOL. Not bad for Konami to trick such people to buy such cards LOL

@squid I came up with one monster, here is its effect: "You must tribute 5 LV12 monsters to summon this card, and cannot be summoned by other ways. Cards and effects cannot be activated and all cards and effects are negated except this one. Card(s) cannot be set. Monster(s) cannot be summoned. You take no battle damage involving this card." ATK Infinity DEF Infinity / Attr Divine / Type God / LV12`, monster name "Vortex" LOL :D

@evilReiko I think that's what he wants too, but semantically that's equivalent to an unbreakable lock, so I'd like to have his word on what specifically he views as the separation between what he wants and what has been proposed. Also, that joke monster can still have its summon negated. :P

Based on what you describe, the card that comes to mind that better fits your needs is Safe Zone:

Activate this card by targeting 1 face-up Attack Position monster on the field; that face-up monster cannot be targeted or destroyed by your opponent's card effects, or be destroyed by battle. It cannot attack your opponent directly. When this card leaves the field, destroy that monster. When that monster leaves the field, destroy this card.

emphasis mine
Of course, every card has it's trade-offs, and this one's are that you can't attack directly. Also, if Safe Zone is removed that monster is also removed (however, if you are talking about Divine Dragon Knight Felgrand, he can save himself from this destruction with his own effect).
Now, it seems that you have to protect your Safe Zone from being destroyed. One card that can do that is Imperial Custom:

Face-up Continuous Trap Cards cannot be destroyed, except "Imperial Custom". You can control only 1 "Imperial Custom".

Another way you can make a monster card impervious to any other card is with the effect of Number 81: Superdreadnought Rail Cannon Super Dora:

Once per turn, during either player's turn: You can detach 1 Xyz Material from this card, then target 1 face-up monster on the field; that target is unaffected by card effects, except for its own effects, until the end of this turn.

This will prevent basically any target, effect destruction, change of control, or other effects that do not target. Of course, if your opponent summons more muscle than your card's it can still go down by battle. I suppose that combining Safe Zone with Number 81's effect would really make it hard to touch.
Other, option you got similar to Number 81 is Divine Dragon Knight Felgrand, which does basically the same plus negating that monster's effect (which could come handy in other scenarios):

Once per turn, during either player's turn: You can detach 1 Xyz Material from this card, then target 1 face-up monster on the field; this turn, its effects are negated, but it is unaffected by other card effects.

If I come up with other means I'll update my answer

That does not make it indestructible, but delays its demise. Maybe a way to make Safe Zone indestructible

Cards like Heavy storm would destroy Imperial Custom and Safe Zone at the same time, or am I wrong?

@VortexYT indeed, as you can see the game is smart enough for this to happen to be difficult, so those cards don't become broken.

@SK19 Heavy Storm is forbidden from play, and I doubt it's coming back. Even though, if it were unrestricted, as the destruction is simultaneously, then safe zone would not be destroyed because at that time of resolution Imperial Custom still protects it.

@VortexYT I would even say there is no indestructible combo or lock, everything can be countered somehow

Obviously, that's not possible.
This is a game where each player challenges the other. Challenging, as a player can narrow down the options of the other player, or can also do a lockdown (where cards are protecting each other in a loop behavior), but not as complete lockdown (that's what you're asking for).
You can do very tight lockdown, where it's almost very difficult to break. Such examples I can think of right now:
Dark Magician Knight Dragon + Eternal Soul
White Dragon Ninja + Safe Zone or Dimension Guardian (also you can add 3rd card March of the Monarchs to strengthen the lockdown)
The Wicked Dreadroot + The Monarachs Awaken
Obelisk the Tormentor + Hardened Armed Dragon
EDIT:
Here's one more lockdown that I think is indestructible:
Jinzo
Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV8
Vanity's Fiend
Slifer the Sky Dragon
Black Luster Solider - Envoy of the Beginning
March of the Monarchs
Light of Intervention
Amplifier (for Jinzo)
Mask of Restrict (to disallow opponent from using Lava Golem and alike monsters)
Finite Cards (so opponent cannot win with Exodia)
You can also replace Slifer & Black Luster Solider with Majesty's fiend, and replace Horus with Spell Canceller, but you will not be able to include the 3 spell cards.
So you will need on your field 5 monsters + 3 spells + 2 traps (which is most likely impossible to get all these 10 cards on the field). The only way I can think of to break this lockdown is that you ran out of cards to withdraw OR your opponent has already powerful monster(s) on the field before you complete the lockdown.
I wouldn't say it's completely unbreakable, but it's almost unbreakable.

"Obviously that's not possible" isn't very constructive is it? Do you have any solid evidence, such as a list of the myriad of possible combinations?

@VortexYT edited my answer, added 1 more lockdown. See if it's breakable.

Obviously that's not possible is a very bold statement, with no evidence whatsoever to say so.

@VortexYT I'll not claim I know all cards & all rules but I played this game for years and I know it's never going to be possible, and it's true, until someone proves it's otherwise possible.

@VortexYT btw, this card might catch your interest, it sounds like it's unbreakable, but it's actually not so hard to break through it

Then that definitely isn't solid evidence is it?  At Stack Exchange, posts like this are based on evidence, and you haven't even answered my question.

If anyone is interested in how to break the lockdowns (I think): use any spell that discards for cost to discard Neo-Spacian Grand Mole. Normal Summon Phantom of Chaos (Slifer does not destroy it; its attack is already 0). Banish Grand Mole and attack Horus, return both to hand. Cosmic Cyclone to remove March of the Monarchs, then Raigeki to wipe the monsters away. For the second version, if they have Spell Canceller, it means Jinzo is also negating Mask of Restrict; you can use Winged Dragon of Ra - Sphere Mode to Tribute Spell Canceler, Vanity's and Majesty's, then Lava Golem it and Jinzo.

Actually, whoops; Amplifier isn't negated by Spell Canceler. Instead, you'll have to Normal Summon Mechanicalchaser, run over Spell Canceler, MST to destroy March of the Monarchs (if it's included), and then Raigeki.

It's no use trying to argue with Vortex. I tried it over a year ago and apparently they haven't changed. Nice list though :)

I am glad that you know

Sort of!
I hope your best card is Psi-Blocker, because boy-oh-boy have we got some spicy memes for this one!
Unfortunately, the combo I'm going to highlight here does require the use of several cards that are banned from competitive play. However, if performed, the player would be utterly untouchable.
Back in 2014, a combo was found which, at the time, would take 140 days to complete... but would literally render every card in the game unusable until the player's next turn by repeatedly summoning and using the effect of Psi-Blocker until every card in the game (not including those required for the loop, of course) was declared. Now, let me reiterate... at the time this would take 140 days to complete. The combo is one of my favorites in card games, because over time, more cards are released - meaning that over time, this combo will take even longer.
The jist of the loop involves using the infernities, lavalval chain, hundred-eyes dragon, and a whole host of other infamous looping staples to summon Phantom of Chaos, banish Psi-Blocker, use its effect, summon Leviair the Sea Dragon, summon back Psi-Blocker, use its effect again, do some work to summon Dewloren, return your whole field to hand and do it all again.
More Along the Lines of What You Asked For:
A scenario where a card cannot be removed or countered by any means is difficult to imagine.. but I believe I have one.
EDIT: Updated after evilReiko pointed out a break. I believe it's now unbreakable, but please feel free to stress test it.
With Majesty's Fiend,
Denko Sekka
Dark Simorgh,
Jinzo,
Amplifier,
Anti-Spell Fragrance,
Imperial Iron Wall,
and Mask of Restrict
already in play, summon The Last Warrior from Another Planet.
With this field,

Your opponent cannot summon Monsters by any means (Last Warrior)
Your opponent cannot Set or activate any Spell/Trap cards, nor Set any Monster cards (Dark Simorgh + Anti-Spell Fragrance)
Your opponent cannot activate any of their Spell/Trap cards that are already Set (Denko Sekka)
Your opponent cannot activate Trap Cards like Infinite Impermanence, which activate directly from the hand (Jinzo)
Your opponent cannot activate any card effect in their GY by banishing the card (Imperial Iron Wall)
Your opponent cannot activate monster effects (Majesty's Fiend)

It is not possible for your opponent to take any action with the given board state, so none of your cards can be removed by any means.
I am aware that some might not consider this "making a monster indestructible." I am working on finding some set of cards that cannot be removed even while the opponent is able to do things, and will update this answer if I find one, but such a combination is extraordinarily difficult (if not outright impossible) to find.

The moment you summon The Last Warrior from Another Planet you have to destroy all your other monsters, so you have to summon it first, if any, and then try to build up this lock

@DarkCygnus Since you have Majesty's Fiend out, Last Warrior's effect to destroy your monsters won't activate.

and as it was in the field before the last warrior nor will the last warrior's continuous ability have effect right? The same thing would happen if it were on the field before Simorgh

@DarkCygnus That's not correct. Majesty's Fiend prevents the activation of monster effects. It does not negate continuous monster effects.

I see, I suspected that... the key is the "activated" word, contrary to, say, Skill Drain which gets rid of all effects.

That's pretty good combo. But you missed something.. How will you be able to summon your monsters if you have The Last Warrior from Another Planet (TLWFAP)? If you summon TLWFAP last then all your monsters will be destroyed, if you summon it first then you will not be able to summon your other monsters.

@evilReiko See my comment above; TLWFAP will not destroy the monsters due to Majesty's Fiend.

I'm not sure, but I think Lava Golem/Santa Claws/Kaiju/etc can be used. Also, I have seen trap cards that can be activated directly from hand (can't remember which cards). Tough lockdown. Anyway, your answer is invalid according to OP, which he wants a-game-breaker card/combo that is 100% indestructible. We will have to wait for Konami to submit an answer.

@evilReiko Updated, do feel free to stress test it further if you want.

@squid That's really epic lockdown! Loophole: opponent may draw all 5 Exodia cards

@evilReiko I saw Finite Cards in a lock below; I don't agree with its inclusion because the question isn't asking for a lock that the opponent can't win in, it's asking for a situation in which the opponent can't remove anything from your field by any means. On the bright side, even if OP decides Exodia is a loophole after all, Mask of Restrict can be replaced with Fog King so that Finite Cards can be included :D

Really interesting answer :) although I don't see how it addresses the question asked (how to make monster indestructible).

@DarkCygnus I agree, which is why I'm still looking through combinations like I mention in my last paragraph. Evidently OP will not be satisfied with a "no" unless every card in the game is checked, so... this is about as close as he can get to a yes. Although, his definition of "indestructible" would suggest that this answer is valid, so I'm not clear on what exactly is keeping it from being accepted.

If "no" is the answer and you phrase it in a valid way (without having to look throughout all combos), then that would be a valid answer IMHO

I know that this doesn't work for all scenarios but if you are running a dragon deck then it can be quite helpful.
The thing that I would try if the card in question is something like 5-headed dragon or cyber end dragon then you could equip it with a dragon shield which will prevent it from being destroyed by battle or card effect, but neither player takes battle damage when it is involved.
I mentioned cyber end dragon earlier and here is why: You can fusion summon Cyber End Dragon using power bond and then increasing its ATK with 1-3 copies of limiter removal or some equip spells, which will then give you a really high ATK monster which can prevent battle destruction and you could use Damage Vaccine Omega Max to prevent the damage from Power Bond. You could also use Safe Zone to prevent effect destruction but you won't be able to direct attack. If you then wanted to win in that turn you could just attack one of their monsters and you would usually win, but if they have monsters that were say... equipped with Dragon Shield, you could then Tribute those monsters to summon Lava Golem to their field and attack it for game.
I hope that I answered your question decently well and maybe have provided some ideas on how to take an indestructible monster a little bit farther.

I am a professional deck builder and this combo is one of the first competitive combo's I ever used which I came up with myself. Also sorry if this is a tad bit of an old combo but non the less it is powerful... If your monster is "The Last Warrior from Another Planet", you can use "Mystical Beast of Serket" with "Temple of The Kings" to bring him out, affect him with "DNA Surgery" (on turn 1 due to temple of the kings) and use "Secret Village of the Spellcasters" to lock your opponent out of all spells and summons, if you activate 2 Temple of the kings you can also prevent your opponent from using traps by Using allure of darkness to send jinzo to the grave, then reviving him with monster reborn and using amplifier with dimension guardian to make him immune to any type of destruction, this will lock your opponent out of summons (due to last warrior), spells (due to DNA Surgery and Secret Village of the Spellcasters), and traps (due to Amplifier and dimension guardian equipped Jinzo), however this setup is pretty rude (by locking your opponent out of absolutely everything), and requires your  entire deck to be sintered around it. for a more consistent, modern setup, I recommend using a spell heavy setup including a small numeron package with a playset of "Sylvan Princessprite", a very tiny spellbook package (maybe 1 spellbook magician, 2 spellbook of knowledge and 2 spellbook of secrets just for the draw power) XYZ gift and cards like allure of darkness (cards that you can meet the requirements of easily and have great draw power) would be your best friend. sorry if this was drawn out but I remade this deck and 2 out of 3 times I use it I get a final board of the last warrior from another planet, DNA surgery, secret village of the spellcasters, and a jinzo affected by amplifier and dimension guardian by turn 2.

This answer has a lot of information in it, but it's hard to read as a wall of text. Perhaps some formatting and fewer parentheticals would help make it more readable. It also could use a top-level summary. Consider making an [edit].

This can be broken by Effect Veiler + Raigeki Break + Farfa, Malebranche of the Burning Abyss. You say "Allure of Darkness to send Jinzo to the grave," but Allure of Darkness banishes the card rather than sends it to grave. You would need additional cards to prevent its banishing, so that Allure would force you to discard your hand instead. Also, per the most recent errata of Temple of the Kings, you wouldn't be able to use a second trap via its effect in the same turn.


text:
What is the criteria for being a "X" monster?
I have a monster X (none in particular), and a card says with Y (again, none in particular) in its name. What is the criteria for monster X being a part of name Y?
For example, this question asks whether a Twilightsworn is considered a Lightsworn monster. The answer is yes, but how is this known? Is it solely because there is "Lightsworn" in "Twilightsworn" ?
Other examples include Dracoslayer in Draco Slayer_____.

Maybe this is my lack of knowledge of the game showing, but this question makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you include an example of what X and Y might be?

We'll be able to give a much better answer if you provide a specific example. The wording of your question is quite vague, at the moment.

VortexYT, as others have already said it isn't real clear what you are asking right now, and as it stand your question is likely to be put on hold. It would be really helpful if you could add a specific example, even if  you want to question or answers to be generic, so that people can clue into more about what for an answer.

The edit clears up the question nicely, hopefully the close-voters will stop by to retract their votes. @CDClarke do you find the edit acceptable?

I think that my answer over there already explains "how is this known?": Originated from the OCG (Japanese), if a card contains in it's name certain prefix or sub-word it is considered of that Archetype... archetypes are the key concept here, and in that answer you can see a detailed explanation and example with some archetypes.

Edit makes it clear, but now it's a dupe of the question DarkCygnus linked

Possible duplicate of Are Twilightsworn considered Lightsworn?

@DarkCygnus How is it a duplicate?

@VortexYT because what you ask I already answered over there IMO (and also in the opinion of other 4 users). Do you think my answer over there could be improved or clarified?

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Why was Reinforcement of the Army limited?
Reinforcement of the Army:

Add 1 Level 4 or lower Warrior monster from your Deck to your hand.

Why is this card limited? There are many cards out there that allow you to add a monster from your deck to your hand, or even better special summon it. So why would they choose this card?

Tried to keep it brief, even though it took quite a good research to give you a thorough answer :)

You are correct in saying that "there are many other cards that search from the deck other monsters", but not every card allows you to do such for no cost at all and also for any lvl 4 or lower Warrior-type monster.
As you can see, the target cards for ROTA are many; at least 488 targets to be specific (according to my queries on the YuGiOh Pro database). This makes this card an extremely powerful option for many decks, and also a card with high abuse potential.

Longer answer:
Now, speaking of abuse potential, doing some research I found that according to this official list ROTA card was brought down to the Limited status on November 2015, more than 2 years ago, and remains Limited since.
If we recall, the booster set Secrets of Eternity was released previously that year (on January), where the Nekroz Archetype made their debut appearance on the TCG. They were at that time perhaps the strongest Archetype out there, evidence of that is the Limiting of Shurit, Strategist of the Nekroz a few months later after their debut (on July 2015 to be specific).
Needles to say that Shurit is a Level 3 Warrior-type monster which basically allowed Nekroz players two things:

Use Shurit as the entire requirement to Ritual Summon any Nekroz Ritual Monster, and...
add any Warrior-type Nekroz Ritual Monster when doing so, or when tributing him in any other ways.

By having 3 Copies of ROTA in your deck you basically had 6 copies of Shurit, greatly increasing the chances of playing it.
Now, Limiting Shurit was not enough, as there was still abuse from Nekroz players. Specifically, regarding Nekroz of Clausolas which (guess what?) is also a lvl 3 Warrior-type monster that can do two things:

Search for any Nekroz Ritual Spell/Trap card, or
negate the effects, and make the Atk 0 of an opponent monster that was Special Summoned from the Extra Deck.

Not only is this card search-able by ROTA, but it also has the ability to do further searching ("thinning" your deck in the process, thus higher odds to pick the cards you want) and also negate effects like our good fellow Effect Veiler (hey they even look similar lol).
Bonus Fact: Other "searcher" spell cards have been Limited before, being Fire Formation - Tenki the most notable one, during the times of the Fire Fist and Bujin Archetypes. Again, had no cost at all, and even increased the Atk of Beast-warriors.

tl;dr:
Given all these facts, we can say that ROTA was brought down with the advent of the Nekroz Archetype, which heavily benefited from its searching effect.
Instead of banning or limiting many cards from the Nekroz Archetype (thus killing it) they decided to restrict Reinforcement of the Army, the real source of abuse from this and other decks back then.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
I have a question about 40K
For a couple of weeks I have been thinking about starting to play Warhammer 40k and as a noob in this game I have a few questions I could use an answer to:

Is it possible for a game to be played with three of more armies?
And what army would be best suited for a starter in terms of price, painting.

I would recommend splitting this into two separate questions: "Can 40k be played with 3+ armies? If so, how?", and "What 40k armies are suitable for getting started?". I'm concerned the latter may be a bit opinion-based, but maybe some people could come up with solid, objective answers. Maybe a better question would be, "Where can I find good starter 40k armies?" - perhaps someone could point you to a site that specializes in 40k lists.

Also, please consider choosing more descriptive titles for your question - indicating what game it is about is better done by adding the appropriate tag.

It's worth noting that a new edition of 40k is dropping on the 17th, and the game is going to have many HUGE changes. Also, you might find you get a better response on sites like reddit (I'd recommend /r/warhammer40k/ ) or  dedicated 40k forums like Dakkadakka where you can get tailored opinions.
Regardless the best army to start with is one that appeals to you (fluff, playstyle, paintscheme, models depending on YOUR preference) ... If you like the armies in the starter box a great (economic) way to start is to split one w/ a friend but if you don't like the starter armies there are plenty of other options.
Ultimately how you get started is an intensely personal decision.


text:
Bang and Panic Cards
For a Panic card, can you draw a blue card that is already in play? If you can, is it possible to use that same blue card for yourself?

From the rules describing the "Draw a card" symbol:

If “any player”
  is specified (see that symbol),
  then you can draw a random
  card from his hand, or you can
  choose one in play in front of him.
  If no player is specified, draw the top
  card of the deck. In any case, cards
  drawn are added to your hand.

The rules don't explicitly clarify what happens when you're drawing from a player in range 1 rather than "any player", but it's reasonable to assume that the same rule applies to those two very similar cases. So yes you can take a blue card that's already in play and put it in your hand. And once it's in your hand, it's yours just like any other card so yes you can use that same card yourself.

The rules say "“Draw a card” from “a player at distance 1”".
This is in the second edition FAQ (unfortunately no link, but it is referenced in a discussion at boardgamegeek):

Q28. Can I use Panic! or Cat Balou on cards in play?
A. Of course yes. You can play the Cat Balou on a card in an opponent’s hand (randomly choosing which card to pick) or on any one card in play, at your choice. The same for Panic!, with the following differences: you can target only cards of a player at distance 1, and the card you choose goes in your hand even if it was already in play. When that card is in your hand, you can play it as any other card.


text:
What is resolved first, an card when-player-summon effect or a summoned card effect?
I'm playing with an Alien deck, and one thing I like to do with this is to activate Planet Pollutant Virus combined with Alien Mars and Alien Psychic.
My question is when my opponent summons a monster that has a effect, which resolves first? E.g.

My opponent plays a monster that can destroy another monster when summoned
My Planet Pollutant Virus places an A-Counter on it
My Alien Mars negates my opponent monster's effect

or

My opponent plays a monster that can destroy another monster when summoned
My Planet Pollutant Virus places an A-Counter on it
My opponent monster's effect is resolved so it destroys my Alien Mars before it's effects are negated

Could you please add links of each card by highlighting a card and pressing Crtl + L, then adding a link from www.yugioh.wikia.com with that card name?

"My opponent plays a monster that can destroy another monster when summoned" - please elaborate

@VortexYT Sorry about this. It seems that you got the question after all, as your answer is clear to me. I didn't get the downvotes, tho.

Chain activation 1: Opponent's monster summoned, and tries to destroy your monster. SS1 (SS2 if quick effect)
Chain Activation 2: Planet Pollutant Planet activates SS2
Where is Alien Mars? Because it is a SS1, it cannot be activated in this chain
Chain Resolution 2: An A-Counter is put on your opponent's monster.
Chain Resolution 1: Your opponent destroys your Alien Mars
Therefore, your opponent's monster destroys your monster, but you managed to put an A-Counter on it with your Planet Pollutant Virus.

This is a clear answer. Didn't know about SS1 and SS2. If there was two SS2, how does the resolving happens?

The card activated last is resolved first

This is incorrect. Alien Mars' effect is continuous, not activated; as soon as an A-Counter is placed on the opponent's monster, its effect is negated by virtue of Mars being on the field. The chain would resolve with that monster's effect being negated, so Mars would not be destroyed.

I think the current answer to this question is wrong. Alien Mars does not activate it's effect because it doesn't have an activated effect; it's effect is continuous. The chain order would be:
Chain link 1: monster is summoned, and it's effect is activated. Note that the summon doesn't start a chain, but the effect does.
Chain link 2: an A-Counter is placed on the opponents monster
On resolution, the counter would be added. Since the opponent's monster has a counter on it, it's effect is negated. This is because the effect of Mars is continuous, and doesn't need its own chain link.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

If you check the wikia page here, you can see that the effect is continuous. If you check the page on continuous effects here, you can see that they don't start chains or have chain links. This means that once the counter is on the monster, it will have it's effects negated if Alien Mars is on the field and Mars' effects are not negated.

You should provide that information in your answer so that others can see it as well without having to search for it.

Can someone confirm it? I always thought this way, until I asked this question here. Now I'm confused.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Can you still fizzle in response to a spell that can't be countered?
If I have Fleeting Image in play, and my opponent targets it with Urza's Rage, am I not allowed to bounce the Fleeting Image in response, since making Urza's Rage fizzle technically counters it?

Note that "Fizzling" isn't an action you take, but instead an event that happens to a spell because of your actions.

Note that this scenario is explicitly listed on Urza's Rage Gatherer page: It can be countered by game rules, such as by having all its targets be illegal. Game rules are neither spells or abilities.

Potential duplicate of http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/24133/9999

@Zags that question asks how it may be countered. I am asking if the way I am trying to counter it is legal. The answers may be the same.

@chiliNUT The point is that Urza's Rage says that it "can't be countered by spells or abilities".  The spell being countered as a result of no legal targets isn't a spell or ability.  Fleeting Image's ability isn't what counters Urza's Rage, it only indirectly causes it to be countered by game rules.  Your question using the term fizzle indicates that this is already a question about countering a spell due to the game rule about illegal targets.

The way I read this question, it inquires about whether it's legal to do an action that would result in a spell that "can't be countered" "being countered. In my mind, this makes it it's own valid question - yet weirdly enough, the accepted answer doesn't answer that part at all. Maybe the questioner should make an edit to be more clear on what the core part of the question is.

You can bounce your Fleeting Image.
The key you're looking for is that Urza's Rage is countered by the game, not a spell or ability. It's just like if you gave Fleeting Image hexproof.  Since hexproof makes it an illegal target, Rage is countered by the game.

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally. Illegal targets, if any, won’t be affected by parts of a resolving spell’s effect for which they’re illegal. Other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them. If the spell or ability creates any continuous effects that affect game rules (see rule 613.10), those effects don’t apply to illegal targets. If part of the effect requires information about an illegal target, it fails to determine any such information. Any part of the effect that requires that information won’t happen.

"countered by the game" really helped to clarify this for me!

It's worth noting that all cards which say "cannot be countered" will also say "by spells or abilities" if they have any targets. Otherwise, you would have a weird situation where a spell tries to fizzle but it can't; so it still resolves, but can't do anything because what it was targeting isn't there / isn't valid.

You can bounce Fleeting Image, and Urza's Rage will be countered because of it.
Note the text on uncounterable spells, which always limits the un-counterability to spells and abilities:

Urza's Rage can't be countered by spells or abilities.

If all targets of a spell become illegal before that spell resolves, that spell will be countered by the rules, from which no spell is protected from:

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal. [..]

Nothing prohibits you from bouncing the Fleeting Image. Since you did bounce it, it is an illegal target for Urza's Rage, which gets countered because of it.

What the other answers fail to address is the reason why you can bounce your Fleeting Image, seeing as your question seems to be whether you're allowed to activate the ability in the first place:
Whether Urza's Rage can be countered or not has nothing to do with whether you're allowed to bounce your creature.
As the other answers did state, Urza's Rage will fizzle in this case for not having any legal targets, which is due to the fact that no spell can be protected from being countered by the game rules. Yet, even in situations where it wouldn't be countered - for example when trying to Counterspell it, you're still allowed to cast the Counterspell, simply because there's nothing keeping you from targetting Urza's Rage or from casting your spell. On resolution, Counterspell will resolve and simply do nothing.
As long as you're not taking an illegal action, the game will progress and work with what you give it, so to speak, as nothing checks for what would happen if something happens. Assuming you are able to pay the cost to activate Fleeting Image's ability, and nothing else keeps you from activating the ability (such as a spell with Split Second being on the stack, for example), you may do so whenever you have priority - in response to anyone casting a Urza's Rage, for example.


text:
Ikora mutate game objects
If I mutate and place the mutate creature on top of a card that was tracking state will this be a new game object and forget whatever state it was tracking. For example, if I mutate and place the mutate on top of Circu Dimir Lobotomist will the card still remember what Circu removed from game or will this function like I flickered the card?
Also if the previous example is a new game object does top or bottom affect whether it's a new game object?
Sorry Circu is a bad example because he's human but the effect that I was looking for was on the card.

Does this answer your question? Rayami Mutated has a different name

I don’t see how that is a duplicate at all... the linked question has nothing to do with whether or not mutate causes a creature to become a new object. It’s about abilities that use the name of the creature in the ability; not specific to mutate at all.

The resulting creature is the same game object that you already had on the battlefield before; all it does is change characteristics. Similar to if someone cast a Turn to Frog on it.
This is the case whether you put the original creature card on top or on bottom of the new mutate card.
From the Ikoria mechanics article:

It simply makes the creature that was already on the battlefield change characteristics. If that original creature was tapped, the new merged creature is tapped. If it had any counters on it, or Auras or Equipment attached to it, it still does.

Also in the overview video, it says

It’s still the same creature it was; it just changed characteristics.

So this is basically like when memnarch changes something to an artifact, I only mention memnarch because is affect does not end at the end of turn? Doesn't the name change if the mutate is on top? Nevermind I just went through the mechanics article that you linked and they explicitly say that the name changes. I'm still curious if memnarchs permanent artifact change is basically the same as mutate, I'm not sure what rules govern permanent effects like memnarchs.

Yes, Memnarch changes the type of a permanent by adding the artifact type; in the same way mutate can change the type or name or color of a creature. The difference is that artifact is a card type, while mutate could only change the creature subtypes (since both the new and old cards have the creature type).

thank you for clarifying based on my example in my previous comment

Mutate could change any part of the type line, depending on the circumstances. For example, if you mutate a legendary creature on top of a non-legendary creature, it would gain the legendary supertype. Or if you mutate a non-artifact creature on top of an artifact creature, it would lose the artifact type.

@murgatroid99 Good point, I made a hasty generalization that's not accurate there.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What knowledge do players get when Hangman is sent to another game using Side Quest?
At a un-draft I had the pleasure of sending Hangman to another silver bordered game with Side Quest. We played it with both players having no knowledge about the hidden word and me confirming if the letters were in the word. Also we didn't give them knowledge about what else had been guessed. Was this the correct way to play this?

I would consider removing the second part of your question and posting it as a new question, as asking about attached cards is separate from what knowledge players get about Hangman when he changes games.

@Malco I was thinking the same thing when I added that. I will go ahead and put that in a separate question.

Your Hangman will receive a new word chosen by the player who you chose to receive it.
Given that this is a silver bordered card, things are a bit confusing sometimes. A Side-questing creature will keep its auras/augments (as per this ruling), however Side Quest does trigger enter the battlefield effects both when he enters the side quest game, and when he returns to your current game.
From Blogatog (Un-rules manager's tumblr):

superc0w asked: Does side quest trigger ETB abilities? I noticed you didn't compliment each other during Game Knights, after passing Chivalrous Chevalier.
MR: It does. The video was edited down, so small things that don’t really matter don’t appear.

and also here:

moone513 asked: If you send a creature with an ETB effect on a Side Quest, does it trigger it's own effect in the other player's game? (You said previously it would trigger when it returned to your game)
MR: Yes, it does.

This means that when your Hangman enters the new game it's enter the battlefield effect will trigger:

As Hangman enters the battlefield, secretly note a word with six to eight letters.

And the player that you gave it to will choose a new word for him.
Now since your Hangman will trigger it's ETB on the returning to your game as well, you will also be need to choose a new word for him once he returns.

In light of the information from Mark Rosewater's appearance on Game Knights I would agree with this answer.

Would a guess put a +1/+1 counter on Hangman for each of the three words for which the guess is wrong, or just the last chosen word?

This is silver-bordered land, so of course there is no "real" rule to cover this. As such, this is my interpretation of the interaction.
Hangman keeps all of the "state" of its mini-game, and Hangman's new Side Quest controller becomes the mini-game's gamemaster for the duration of the Side Quest. So Hangman would keep its originally-chosen word, Hangman would keep its +1/+1 counters, and all players in the Side Quest game would have access to which letters had already been guessed and what the "progress" of the mini-game is.
My justification for this answer is that I would expect a generic 1/1 creature with a +1/+1 counter on it to keep its counter when going on a Side Quest, and I would expect a creature that had gained e.g. First Strike to retain that ability when going on a Side Quest. In other words, I think that Side Quest keeps the creature in its current state.
From Mark Rosewater's tumblr:

magicwizardmageman asked: What happens if you augment a creature on a side quest?
It stays with the creature and returns to the original game. Same for an aura. If either of the games end, the Augment/aura goes to its owner’s graveyard.

This sounds like "official" justification that you try to keep the Side Quest creature as "current" as possible while moving it between games.

This answer makes me wonder if hangman would have 2 words when he gets to the second game and then 3 words when he got back to his original game since state is maintained when moving between games.


text:
Eldritch Horror skill test for multiple combat encounters on same turn
I bought the base game for Eldritch horror recently and I have one point that I needed clarification on. I have two monsters on a particular space and I cast the Wither spell for my first encounter successfully gaining three strength. I did not defeat the monster and for my next combat turn, would I still have the three extra strength or would I have to pass a lore test again? Also, on the next turn, would I have to cast the spell again for its effect or would the effects stay since I am battling the same monster. Kindly advice.

Wither gives 3 strength to a combat encounter, can you clarify if you believe it gives additional health or strength and correct your question?

From the base rule book, page 9:

Combat Encounters
If an investigator is on a space containing one or more Monsters, he
  must resolve a single Combat Encounter against each Monster on that
  space, one at a time, in the order of his choice. Combat Encounters
  are described in detail on page 14.
After an investigator resolves all Combat Encounters, if there are  no
  Monsters in his space, he may resolve another encounter.
The card effect only lasts as long as the combat encounter, and the
  combat encounter lasts only for fighting a singular monster.

The Wither Card states:

When resolving a Combat Encounter, you may test Lore. If you pass, gain +3 Strength during that encounter.

Hence, the combat encounter is the process in fighting a singular monster and you can have multiple combat encounters in a singular encounter phase. Wither only lasts for a singular combat encounter (single monster) and gives +3 strength for it.
You would need to cast the spell again in the next combat encounter if you wanted it's effects again.
Make sure you flip the card each time you cast the spell to resolve the effect on the back.


text:
Open source engine / software for makruk?
There are open-source engines for chess, shogi (e.g. gShogi), xiangqi (e.g. XiangQi Engine) and other strategy board games.
Are there any open-source engines for makruk? (I.e. not just freeware.)
Note: this is not a request for recommendations, but an attempt to find out whether any such open-source engines exist at all. I could not find any at the time when I posted this question.

The only open-source makruk engines I know of are:

fairymax
Sjaak II
Stockfish

The latter is my attempt of adapting Stockfish for makruk. Below you can find some recent test results. I can not give an estimate of how these engines compare to strong human players though.
Rank Name                          Elo     +/-   Games   Score   Draws
1    stockfish-mak-f364111         359     103      80   88.8%   15.0%
2    Bilis_v1.0                    127      65      80   67.5%   32.5%
3    sjaakii-1.4.1                 -61      60      80   41.2%   40.0%
4    fairymax-5.0b                -174      62      80   26.9%   38.8%
5    NebiyuAlien                  -185      55      80   25.6%   46.2%


text:
Boggle: What is the dice configuration for Boggle in various languages?
This is the dice configuration for the English Boggle:

Other variants and discussions concerning letter distributions for English can be found here:

The Boggle cube redesign and its effect on the difficulty of Boggle,
Boggle - Everything2.com,
Letter Distribution | BoardGameGeek,
Talk:Boggle (Wikipedia).

I am interested in the 16 dice configurations for also other languages (Spanish in particular) and I am unable to find it anywhere online.

Versions I have managed to find so far:

Czech 16 dice version,

English 25 dice version:

Spanish 25 dice version:

Italian 25 dice version:

This French page gives the following configuration for a 16 die Boggle version:
ETUKNO EVGTIN DECAMP IELRUW
EHIFSE RECALS ENTDOS OFXRIA
NAVEDZ EIOATA GLENYU BMAQJO
TLIBRA SPULTE AIMSOR ENHRIS
According to this French wikipedia article it is the configuration for the 'international' edition of Boggle.
I assume it is also the configuration for the Portugese 16-die version, since it is used for a Portugese Excel version of Boggle (see here).

I found another web site that state the same dice. It has a solution finder: https://www.dcode.fr/solveur-boggle-4x4

I finally got my hands on a Spanish version of a 4x4 (16 dice) Boggle, specifically the "enclosed electronic-timer" version (sometimes referred to as "Scrabble Boggle" or "Boggle Reinvention")
The dice configuration is:
ARHSDE FUAARB IOTALG UOEEOCh*
FOMTUI OODBLG RPSZTL EBIOUA
CAREME RSJEFI NSXJAH UVDQBCh*
NBIMEE BAANIT EPVOCU SCAAPT
*In Spanish Boggle, Ch is printed together but counts as two separate letters when scoring.

I made Dice combination in Bosnian language.
It can be used in Serb and Croat language.
Dice configuration:

The (one of?) the German version(s) you can find on my blog at http://blogabissl.blogspot.com/2016/08/boggle.html, standard 4 times 4 = 16 dice, including the way I turned the dice.

Another 16-die Spanish version from Argentinean manufacturer Kipo's:
['N', 'D', 'S', 'E', 'A', 'O'], ['A', 'O', 'U', 'E', 'A', 'I'],
['N', 'I', 'T', 'A', 'G', 'U'], ['V', 'O', 'N', 'J', 'S', 'L'],
['E', 'S', 'O', 'Ñ', 'A', 'D'], ['E', 'Qu', 'O', 'S', 'H', 'D'],
['C', 'E', 'N', 'O', 'L', 'S'], ['D', 'T', 'A', 'R', 'O', 'I'],
['C', 'N', 'I', 'R', 'T', 'F'], ['P', 'S', 'C', 'E', 'L', 'O'],
['E', 'H', 'I', 'X', 'U', 'R'], ['B', 'O', 'M', 'L', 'E', 'Z'],
['A', 'R', 'E', 'C', 'M', 'A'], ['S', 'A', 'C', 'E', 'N', 'O'],
['P', 'O', 'D', 'E', 'T', 'A'], ['B', 'R', 'A', 'E', 'L', 'A']

(my apologies if the brackets and commas are uncomfortable, I'm taking this from my JavaScript project)

Italian 16 and Finnish dice configuration.
A-A-E-I-O-T  A-B-O-O-M-Qu  A-B-I-L-R-T  A-C-E-L-R-S
A-C-D-E-M-P  A-C-F-I-O-R  A-D-E-N-V-Z  A-I-M-O-R-S
C-E-N-O-T-U  D-E-N-O-S-T  E-E-F-H-I-S  E-G-L-N-O-U
E-G-I-N-T-V  E-H-I-N-R-S  E-I-L-O-R-U  E-L-P-S-T-U
A-N-FG-Ä-T-O  Ä-A-N-I-T-I  A-K-BC-L-Ä-E  A-Ä-O-A-A-A
E-A-K-H-L-N  I-A-L-J-O-K  E-Y-U-T-V-H  S-S-K-E-M-P
N-T-U-R-S-P  E-K-S-T-L-M  E-I-E-I-N-D  T-O-I-A-Ä-N
N-I-Ö-T-E-J  S-I-O-R-M-N  I-S-T-L-U-N  V-U-S-S-T-Y

We've been playing Super Boggle (by Parker) many times every day for the last 20 years. The letters on the cubes have started to become illegible. You can no longer buy Super Boggle (5x5 with flashing 3-minute timer), as I think it was lost when Hasbro took over from Parker.
It's the best version of the game, so I just needed to replace the letter cubes.
I suspect that other "English" versions on this site are actually "American English". We have been playing "British English" and so the letter distribution in the cubes is different. See letter distribution list below.
SOLUTION: I found that by buying 2 of the Hasbro 4x4 versions of British Boggle (Hasbro C2187 Boggle Classic from Amazon), all 16 of the cubes from the 1st set were the same as my original 25 cubes, and then I could use 9 of the cubes from the 2nd set to complete the duplicates which were in the original. Ths is shown below.
I'm happy again. We have a full 5x5 Super Boggle set again. Modern Big Boggle is not the same.

Could you clarify: Which format is the list for? You mention 4 different games/letter sets in your answer, and two in the paragraph you reference the list (american english and british english)

Warning, the chart in answer by Mac 9/15/2020 has error.

As last edited Sep 15 '20, the chart has an error.
The faces of die 11 should be EEINSU (U is correct, V is wrong).
I can verify that all other die in the chart are correct per the physical
Parker Brothers 4x4 game 00384 (number on box) aka 0384C-1 (number
on printed instruction sheet that is copyright 1973, 1997 by Hasbro, Inc.)
which I believe is for US English, aka American English.
The 00384 game die are 18mm wide.  Inexpensive blank spares (eg):
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32970377768.html


text:
Card advantage: scry v. surveil
I've heard it said that Scry 1 is equivalent to 0.5-0.75 of a drawn card; is there a similar number of card draw that Surveil 1 represents?
Edit: this link has a reddit discussion that attempts to put a number equivalence on scrying: How much is 'Scry' worth in terms of card draw?.

Heard where? Link?

Putting things in your graveyard is usually more useful than putting it on the bottom of your library. Especially in a black deck.

Yes; surveil as good as if not strictly better than scry in every circumstance. I'm just looking for a number.

There isn't going to be a nice numerical value that you can assign to surveil like you can to scry because the utility of surveil depends on your deck.
If you have a deck with no graveyard interaction, surveil is pretty much identical to scry in terms of card advantage.  It's arguably worse, because moving the cards to a public zone gives your opponent information about what cards you want in your hand, makes the cards vulnerable to graveyard interactions your opponents might have, and makes it slightly easier for you to deck out (all of which are pretty minor).
On the other hand, if your deck has graveyard interaction, surveil suddenly jumps in value.  Discarding a card with flashback or jump-start gives you half the value you would have gotten from drawing it.  Surveiling a Narcomoeba is actually significantly better than scrying or even drawing it.  And a deck with undergrowth becomes more powerful with every creature dumped into the graveyard.
All this makes the 'value' of surveil significantly more variable than the value of scry, and significantly harder to analyze.

@Allure You have a point, but not all decks search either, so it's still a deck dependent advantage.

Besides the issue you bring up, it depends on your deck because the more consistent your deck is, the less deck control you need. Regarding the rest of your answer, Flashback costs are often higher than the normal cost (although sometimes smaller), so discarding one can be less than half the value of drawing. Discarding Jump-Start doesn't give any card advantage (unless combined with  Madness). Putting a card with Jump-Start in your graveyard is somewhat like getting another Surveil: if you don't like a card, you can discard it to get a different one.


text:
Engines that play Mangala?
Mangala is the Turkish version of mancala, with its own set of rules.
I am planning on doing a project in it. Are there any game engines that either specifically play it, or universal Mancala players that plays it after supplying the options?
EDIT:
I am not looking for an app, but for a game engine. For example in chess, Deep Shredder is a playing app, while Stockfish is an open-source engine.

Stackoverexchange is not google. You are expected to do your own research.

I didn't find anything usable

@ColinD Referring others to Google is not constructive, and lack of research is not a valid reason to close a question. Just hover over the downvote button and a tooltip will appear that describes what it is for, in case you have forgotten. To others (not Colin), if "Where can I find a Mangala client?" is off topic, then "Where can I find an MTG client?" is definitely off topic as well. Try to be consistent.

@Rainbolt, The difference between the 2 questions is that the MTG one is clearly about playing the game, this seems to be more about simulating the game play.

@ColinD I want to use it for both. I am the top player on my school, and want to do a project for an upcoming fair.

Voting to reopen: the close reason says "except for computer-based versions of board or card games" which is exactly what this question is about. Maybe it's off-topic for some other reason, but no one has bothered to explain why.

@Jefromi I agree with you. We should place this on the meta.

This is a year old so what did you end up doing? Did you find an engine or did you write your own?

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but the name is correct. Here is Mangala game available on the AppStore. I haven't played it, so I can't confirm that it's using Turkish variant of the rules rather than the most popular one from Mancala.
I guess we have to wait until you introduce a playable game of Mangala! :) Of course if that's what your project is about.
You could specify in your question (list) what rules are important to you to be included in the version you're looking for. Take a look here, maybe one of those games is similar enough.

I believe I found what you're looking for. If you're really willing to do this project, I found a Google Play Turkish Mangala game, I hope it's what you're looking for. Although, you can just buy a board online, or somewhere.
Turkish Mangala - if this doesn't work use this: Turkish Puzzle Game

Welcome to BC&G! :) I believe the link you used is the same I've provided in my answer and the other one is Android version.

I used to have this on my computer before phone apps. It was called Bantumi. Also try looking for Kalah


text:
"Analog" version of Kung-Fu Chess?
Kung-Fu Chess is a real-time chess variant without turns where players may freely move their pieces, subject to a delay period of a few seconds after a move during which a piece cannot be moved again. The current online version of Kung-Fu Chess is Judo Chess.
Is there an "analog" version of Kung-Fu Chess which can be played on a standard chess board (i.e., not on a computer)? Is this even feasible or would it be impossible to implement?

At first this seemed very infeasible to me.

You would need a 3 second timer for every piece.
You need a way to prevent simultaneous claims of single board spaces.

After giving it some thought, I came up with a possible implementation. You would need a board with a socket for each square. When a piece is inserted into this socket, it is held in place by the socket for 3 seconds. Each piece would then need an indicator so you can see whether or not it can be moved (based on the status of the socket) and a button to remove it within the 3 second timeframe in case it's been captured.
Two people simultaneously using both hands to move 32 pieces on a 50x50cm chess board still seems like a bad idea. The board would have to be a bit bigger than a normal chess board, with more distance between the pieces. This will mitigate the problem but for the most part this will have to be "part of the game".

+1 Thanks, this is an interesting suggestion. I wonder if the 3 second timer could be approximated by ruling players cannot make consecutive moves with the same piece. Another idea that just occurred to me is to randomize movement timing, using dice or drawing cards from a deck. For example, players roll a 6 sided die to determine if a piece may be moved, with no limit on # of die rolls. On a 1 or 2 the player may move a piece. Of course this would result in a chess game with frantic dice rolling, which could be distracting.


text:
How do the Batman Cuffs work in Batman Fluxx?
The Batman Cuffs card says you can hide a Creeper.

Does this mean that Creeper is now under your control?
Can you hide someone else's Creeper?
What happens when you choose to unhide it? Is it yours or your opponents'?

Unclear still on how the Batcuffs work based on these two official sources:

Q: How exactly do the Batman Cuffs work? (Batman™ Fluxx FAQ),
http://looneylabs.ning.com/forum/topics/rules-question-batman-cuffs (dead link, verified on 29.12.2020).

The FAQ already answers part of your question:

Q: How exactly do the Batman Cuffs work?
A: Yes, the wording on that Keeper is a bit vague. The intention is
  that you can hide one Creeper under the card on your turn. You can
  reveal it at any time, but the hiding can only be done on your turn.
  We will be updating the wording on subsequent print runs to make that
  clear.

Remains the question if you can hide someone else's creeper.
We can'be sure what the intention is on this one. But based on several Fluxx set's I own, I assume you can't. There are a few cards that work on other player's creepers and these are spelled out. So it is not likely that you can use these for creepers you don't control.

Cuffing a Creeper then leads only to its inability to be used further until uncuffed correct? Say someone removes the cuffs Keeper, then what happens to the Creeper?

What exactly does hiding a creeper mean? Does it still count towards goals? Does it still stop people from winning?

Hiding a creeper would mean it can't be counted towards goals. But it would also hide the Creeper from Creeper effects as well. Once "uncuffed" the creeper would just be revealed again.


text:
What are the correct official abbreviations for Commander's Anthology & Arsenal?
In Magic: the Gathering both Commander's Anthlogy and Commander's Arsenal are listed as having CMA as three letter abbreviation:

COMMANDER'S ARSENAL,

Commander Anthology.

In the Wikipedia article List of Magic: The Gathering sets they are listed as CM1 and CMA. The same goes for MTG Wiki.
Shall I consider CM1 (Arsenal) and CMA (Anthology) as the correct official ones?

I'm not sure you're going to get a more "official" answer than the information published on the Wizards website. What do you need this information for? If you're using a specific tool or website that uses three letter abbreviations for sets, you're more likely to get the information you need by asking what abbreviations that specific tool or website uses.

The comment to your question is exactly right in that you're not going to get a more official set name than the official set name. I'd say it's not intentional that those sets have the same name, but that's hard to say for certain.
However, in order to differentiate between sets, even WotC will have to choose different set abbreviations internally, and looking through the Gatherer source code, specifically the set icon URL, you can find within the parameters that WotC has indeed chosen CM1 as the abbreviation.
In the interest of completeness, here's a table of all Commander-related sets to date, and their codes:
SET NAME                   ABBREVIATION     GATHERER ABBREVIATION (if different)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commander                  CMD
Commander's Arsenal        CMA              CM1
Commander 2013 Edition     C13
Commander 2014             C14
Commander 2015             C15
Commander 2016             C16
Commander Anthology        CMA

In other words, CM1 seems to be used by WotC at least internally, and either way it seems less ambiguous to rely on that as the abbreviation for Commander's Arsenal than CMA
The Gamepedia MTG Wiki, which list CM1 as the official abbreviation, also link to that URL as proof.
My guess is that they have always used CM1 as the abbreviation for Commander's Arsenal, and that it's simply a mistake in the blog post you linked. With little relevance to MTG in general (containing only reprints, and being relatively rare), I can see why it never got addressed or changed again.

I will use those in MTG Studio as CM1 and CMA. Thanks!


text:
Are the names of guilds in Ravnica protected intellectual property?
I don't see a TM symbol anywhere and some searches of the interwebs reveals nothing but laughing cats...
I'm not wanting to infringe, just not step on toes.
(Very big, powerful toes)

It's worth noting that WotC will only contact you if you are attempting to profit off of them. Personal use, such as making a work of art that uses the names or using them in a fan fiction, are perfectly allowed (as long as you do not sell that art or work of fiction.)

The question title and the tag says "copyright", but the question body asks about "TM", which stands for "trademark", not copyright.

For what purpose would you be using the names? This might be an XY problem, where you want to ensure you won't infringe for some purpose, but you're asking about trademark/copyright to determine that — that wouldn't always be an issue but in this case trademark or copyright are only a subsection of intellectual property law that might apply.

If you have more questions about trademark law, then the best site to ask on is usually https://law.stackexchange.com

thank you, @Acccumulation I did have that mixed up. Intent is to make colorful shirts of guild colors, which is probably OK if I don't have a guild name on it.

@MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars Note that even without a name on them, you wouldn't be allowed to sell them as "Azorius Shirts". If you want something like "Rakdos-inspired shirt", you might need to talk to a lawyer first, because at that point you're getting into complicated legal territory.

It does seem that wizards has trademarked all of the guild names (list here), so I would avoid using them without express permission or a licensing agreement, as wizards could pursue legal action.
However, trademark is primarily for commercial endeavours, so if this is for personal use there shouldn't be an issue.

I would add that even personal use - if in a disparaging manner - might be grounds for a law suit if Wizards wanted to enforce a Cease and Desist order.

They also seem to have trademarked the very word Magic, which seems entirely unenforceable.

@WeckarE. maybe not - I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that trademarks are use-specific.  So a trademark on Magic means that they could sue other card games named Magic, but not books or movies or magic shows or anything else.  And that's a scope that is narrow enough to be enforceable.

@WeckarE. a trademark is only applicable for a certain context. I imagine theirs is something like "board games". This protects them from somebody releasing a cheap knock off and calling it "Magic: the Collection". However, if you are, say, a loan shark and call your business "Magic: the Gathering" that should be fine as you are not in the business of board games.

@Weckar E., Other enforceable trademarks: Windows, Apple, Amazon, Monster, etc.

@VLAZ Actually, the size of the brand influences whether or not the protection extends beyond the context. For example, Coca Cola is big enough that people might think that the Coca Cola Collectors loan shark is somehow related to the beverage manufacturer. I don't know if MtG is a strong enough brand to be protected like that (my guess is that it would be) but it's definitely not as simple as you set it out to be. (Broadness of the trademarked term is similarly of influence, which is why MtG trademarked Magic: the Gathering instead of just "Magic".)


text:
When a card modifies how many copies of that card a deck can have, does that affect the sideboard?
I'm using MTG Cardsmith to design custom cards for a casual tournament with friends. My goal is to design some cards that make sense within the current rules of the game, while still being flavorful and interesting; one of my ideas is for a card that can only be played as a singleton (one copy per deck), in any format. But I'm not sure how best to write the rule text when sideboarding is taken into account.
I thought I'd follow the wording of Persistent Petitioners, which reads:

A deck can have any number of cards named Persistent Petitioners.

The problem with this is that it's ambiguous whether "a deck" is inclusive of the sideboard or not. It doesn't really matter for Petitioners, because if the point is you can play as many as you want, a) you don't really need the sideboard and b) if you wanted to somehow side into Petitioners, it would be inconsistent with the spirit of the card not to allow you to add 15 of them.
But if you're limiting the card to one copy, then it becomes important to know whether that's one copy in the main deck plus another one (or three) in the side, because of things like wishes.
I check the comprehensive rules and it seems they define a deck as follows:

100.2. To play, each player needs their own deck of traditional Magic cards, small items to represent any tokens and counters, and some way to clearly track life totals.

100.2a In constructed play (a way of playing in which each player creates their own deck ahead of time), each deck must contain at least sixty cards. A constructed deck may contain any number of basic land cards and no more than four of any card with a particular English name other than basic land cards.
100.2b In limited play (a way of playing in which each player gets the same quantity of unopened Magic product such as booster packs and creates their own deck using only this product and basic land cards), each deck must contain at least forty cards. A limited deck may contain as many duplicates of a card as are included with the product.

And a sideboard as follows:

100.4. Each player may also have a sideboard, which is a group of additional cards the player may use to modify their deck between games of a match.

100.4a In constructed play, a sideboard may contain no more than fifteen cards. The four-card limit (see rule 100.2a) applies to the combined deck and sideboard.

(And so on.)
The implication of "combined deck and sideboard" in 100.4a is that the word "deck" technically refers to what we more loosely call a "main deck" and is exclusive of the sideboard.
Furthermore, the four-card limit of 100.2a explicitly applies to the "combined deck and sideboard." However, 100.4a does not explicitly state that any restriction on the number of copies of a card that may be played is necessarily applied in this way.
So, my gut feeling is that the rules text of the card should be worded like this:

A deck can not have more than one card named [this card].

If Wizards were to print a card with that wording today, would the limitation apply only to the (main) deck as defined by 100.2, or would it apply to the "combined deck and sideboard," consistent with 100.4a? Is there some basis for an official ruling here, even though the wording is essentially hypothetical? Or should I resign myself that this needs to be interpreted as a house rule?

If Wizards decided to print a card like this, I expect they would word it how you have, and then add to the comprehensive rules to disallow multiples in the combination of deck and sideboard. I doubt they ever would, because it interacts badly with Limited

Interestingly, Wizards recently printed Seven Dwarves in ELD, which modifies the "four-of" rule via the wording, "A deck can have up to seven cards named Seven Dwarves." Unfortunately, the Oracle errata does not currently clarify the case when allowed copies are reduced.

Rule 100.4 clearly distinguishes between the deck and the sideboard, by using the word "also". That is, a player must have a deck of minimum size and may choose to have a sideboard of maximum size.
Rule 100.4a again makes this distinction, and clarifies that the deck and sideboard together may contain a maximum of four copies of the same card. This ensures a person cannot "accidentally" end up with more than four copies of the same card when making changes between deck and sideboard, or "accidentally" mix up the two sets of cards to disguise excess use of one card.
Rule 100.4c gives further insight into the separation between decks and sideboards, by telling us that all cards not in the decks of either player are in the sideboard. A card cannot both be in the sideboard and in the deck, therefore the sideboard cannot be part of the deck.
Consider the outcome of counting the sideboard as part of the deck: someone could pick just 45 (or 25!) cards for actual use in the match, shuffled to form their library. If this was intended, the rule writers could, and given the clarity of the Rules as a whole, assuredly would, have said so.
All told, this would mean a card that says "You may only have one copy of [Card Name] in your deck" would not disallow having three copies in the sideboard as well. However, none of those other copies could be brought into the game by an effect that accesses the sideboard (if such an effect were to be written). To avoid the loophole, the card should say "... in your combined deck and sideboard".

Your last point about building with redundant copies of the "limited to 1" card in the sideboard poses an interesting problem, as it suggests that the rules text printed on a card that is "outside the game" could affect the legality of an effect produced by a card actually being played; namely, Research (DIS) choosing multiple copies of that sideboard card. I don't know if there is any precedent to establish what would happen in that scenario, since the restricted list and EDH limitations are deckbuilding rules, not gameplay

Another point of evidence, which you may wish to incorporate into this answer, is that the Glossary section on p. 202 of the July 12, 2019 Comprehensive rules defines "Deck" as "The collection of cards a player starts the game with; it becomes that player’s library." Cards that remain in the sideboard do not become part of a player's library at the start of the game, so this definition is consistent with your answer.

Yes, the word "deck" includes the sideboard.

From the Gatherer rulings of Persistent Petitioners, we have (emphasis mine):

The last ability of Persistent Petitioners lets you ignore the “four-of” rule. It doesn’t let you ignore format legality. For example, during a Ravnica Allegiance Limited event, you can’t add Persistent Petitioners from your personal collection, no matter how much they ask.

As you have pointed out in your question,

... rule 100.2a explicitly applies to the "combined deck and sideboard."

That rule is referred in the card as the "four-of" rule, which seems to imply it will apply to both main deck and sideboard.
Furthermore, when cards refer to your deck as being only the "main deck", the wording used is "(your) library" instead.
Regarding your other question:

If Wizards were to print a card with that wording today, would the limitation apply only to the (main) deck as defined by 100.2, or would it apply to the "combined deck and sideboard," consistent with 100.4a?

A card with that specific wording seems highly unlikely to be printed. However, in the event such a card is printed with that wording, it would most likely have a Gatherer ruling specifying that it would apply to both main deck and sideboard combined, since it would make no sense to restrict a card to one copy in the main deck while allowing extra copies to be put in the sideboard. As you mentioned, since this is a very hypothetical question, we cannot, alas, be sure of how WotC would apply such a ruling.

The library is just a zone; cards in other zones, such as your hand, graveyard, the battlefield, and exile, are nevertheless part of your deck. The closest I have found to a card that refers to the entirety of the maindeck is Hedron Alignment, which enumerates four specific zones; or cards that include the phrase "from anywhere," which logically includes the sideboard.

If Wizards were to print such a card today they would change the rules at the same time to clarify how it works.  The current rules simply don't cover that situation because there are no cards that restrict themselves to one copy.


text:
Can a reverse follow a 2-over-1 response?
This question is related to What Is a “Reverse” In Bridge?, but covers a different case.
I understand that reverses (17+ HCP, longer in first suit than second) apply to a 1-level response:
S    W    N    E
1D   pass 1S   pass
2H

But suppose the bidding has a 2-over-1 response from responder showing 11+ points (but not game-forcing):
S    W    N    E
1D   pass 2C   pass
2H

Is the 2H bid normally interpreted as a reverse? Or is this partner convention?

There are a few answers to this question :)
First, technically that is a reverse, though it does not necessarily show extras. The best definition of reverse I've seen is "A non-jump rebid by opener that would force responder to give preference at the three-level." So in the example you gave, if partner prefers diamonds to spades they would have to bid 3D, making it a reverse.
However, what you're really asking is: Does a reverse after a 2/1 response show extras? Here, it depends strongly on partnership agreements. You do not say what system you are playing, but I will assume that it is either Standard American or the related 2/1 Game Forcing.
If you are playing Standard American, the Yellow Card booklet says that a reverse still shows extras, but some partnerships modify this agreement.
If you are playing 2/1 Game Forcing, there's two different types of auctions to consider:

1D-2C: This auction bears special discussions since there isn't a particularly widely accepted standard treatment. As an example of the variety of opinions, see this thread on BBO about 1D-2C.
1M-2m: I'm going to sound like an echo, but partnership discussions apply. My sense is that most pairs play the reverse as not showing extras, although my preference is to play that it denies a dead minimum.

Rebids after reverses are in general a field where I find most beginners and intermediate players have a different idea of what is "standard"; I strongly suggest discussing this situation with any new partner you sit down with, or at least do as Marty Bergen suggests, and pray they don't come up.

This seems to be a widely-discussed issue. I think that the reverse should be "off." (Meaning -- it's technically a "reverse" by definition perhaps, but it should not have the meaning of a reverse.) It may be difficult to show such a strong hand later (which is possible, but statistically unlikely).  The benefit of showing the 4 card major seems to be fairly large, especially as you could still have a 4-4 major fit. It is only if you are looking for slam that you need to show extras. You can play that a jump to 3NT in a 2/1 auction shows 15-17 points, and so that takes care of many of these hands. And with a major-suit fit you could use serious 3NT. Of course these are more sophisticated agreements, but it seems the lesser evil (when compared to having 2S be limited to strong hands).

First, some terminology and basic analysis:

A 2 over 1 is a response by Opener's partner, in an uncontested auction, to an opening of  1S, 1H or 1D at the two level in a lower ranking suit than Opener's.
In all natural systems a 2 over 1 call promises to not let the auction die below the level of 3 in Responder's suit (possibly excepted with passing an invitational 2NT rebid by Opener). By inference it shows a hand of suitable strength (both defensive and offensive) to make such a promise.

A Two Over One is a systemic 2 over 1 call, from systems such as Two Over One Game Forcing and Kaplan-Sheinwold, which assigns additional meaning and strength to the response.
All such agreements are excluded from the analysis below, as they require systemic rebids by opener.

Opener's Reverse promises sufficient strength, both offensive and defensive, to play at the three level in the best available fit. Following a 1 over 1 response this is generally taken to be a hand worth about 17 points.

Now consider the auction provided:
 1D - Pass - 2C - Pass
 2M?

Responder has promised (with sufficient values) to not let the auction die below 3C; and Opener has promised sufficient values to play at the three level in the best available fit.
Note that the additional partnership strength required for Opener's Reverse are already provided by Responder.
Therefore Opener does not promise any additional strength with the call.

The meaning of a "reverse" in this situation will vary between partnerships, but here's what it means to me. (Hopefully, you will have discussed this hypothetical with your partner before the situation comes up.
When partner bids "one over one," s/he could have as little as six points. (Actually, the one over one bid implies two potential ranges, 6-9, and 10-12, the latter when it functions as a substitute for a two over one bid of a lower suit. And in a few cases, you might have more than 12 points.)
Then a reverse means, "we might be in game zone" if we can find a trump fit." Over a one over one bid, I imply 17 points or more, against your presumed nine points, a rough "average" of your possible holdings.
If you've made a two over one bid, you've shown 10-12 points. In that case a "reverse" on my part would require at least 15-16 points (not 17), to get to the 25-27 needed for game.


text:
Weird Chance and Community Chest Cards
I received a Monopoly set for Christmas, version C1009.
The Chance and Community Chest cards are non-standard. For instance, one instructs you to throw all the 100 dollar bills in the air.
Does anyone have a list of the Chance and Community Chest Cards that are accepted as the gold standard for tournament play?

In the 2018 version of Monopoly, Cash Grab is a Chance card that replaces the «Bank pays you dividend of $50» card https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2112669/2018-edition-new-cash-grab-chance-card

The following website gives the list of cards for the American versions.
List of Chance and Community Chest cards
If you are playing a version for another country, e.g. U.K. or Australia, the cards will differ. Also, tournaments must use officially licensed Hasbro Monopoly games.
For more details, there is a Wiki How to host an official Monopoly tournament:
Wiki How to host a Monopoly tournament


text:
How are requirements addressed during declaration as attackers?
I'm making a Voltron commander with Khârn the Betrayer at the helm for some flavorful Khorne gameplay. The main objective to to pass the commander, Khârn, around and watch as people are forced kill each other with him. I've run into a curious question that my play group can't answer themselves. I have Errantry attached to Khârn the Betrayer.
Here are my questions:

How & when are requirements addressed during the declaration of attackers?

What would happen is my opponent would declare another creature as an attacker because neither card prevents you from declaring other attackers. This would create an invalid board state and Khârn's "if able" would be checked. He is not able to attack because of the invalid board state and then not attack. Can he do this or does he have to attack with Khârn alone?

Which requirement takes precedence "can only attack alone" +
"must attack if able" or just "must attack if able"? Which is fulfilled first?

I have a lot of goad in the deck for defense and to prevent Khârn from coming back at me. Do you fulfill Khârn's requirements first?

If there are no other requirements or restrictions, the only legal attack declaration is to attack with Khârn and no other creatures.
The two key rules for this are in the Declare attackers step rules:

508.1c The active player checks each creature they control to see whether it’s affected by any restrictions (effects that say a creature can’t attack, or that it can’t attack unless some condition is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of attackers is illegal.
508.1d The active player checks each creature they control to see whether it’s affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature attacks if able, or that it attacks if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal. If a creature can’t attack unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if attacking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed. If a requirement that says a creature attacks if able during a certain turn refers to a turn with multiple combat phases, the creature attacks if able during each declare attackers step in that turn.

Restrictions are absolute: no attack declaration is legal unless it obeys all restrictions. Requirements are a little more flexible: you must obey as many requirements as you can without violating any restrictions. So, restrictions take precedence over requirements.
Khârn's ability creates a requirement, because it says that Khârn attacks if able. Errantry creates a restriction, because it says that the creature cannot attack unless some condition is met. Errantry's restriction is obeyed either if the enchanted creature does not attack, or if the enchanted creature attacks and no other creatures attack. Khârn's attack requirement is obeyed if Khârn attacks. If there are no other requirements or restrictions, the only legal attack declaration is to attack with Khârn and no other creatures.
If there are other requirements or restrictions in play, you have to evaluate in that situation what attacks maximize the number of obeyed requirements without violating any restrictions.


text:
Name of fast card game with penalties?

Goal: First player to run out of cards wins.

Deal: Divide cards evenly and place face down in a deck in front of each player.

Play is fast.

Penalties:

If a player takes too long, opponents can yell penalty and every player gives them a card.
If a player makes a mistake, opponents can yell penalty and every player gives them a card.

Rules:

The top face up card of the player's discard pile must be played if possible before player touches top card of player's deck; if not, penalty.
Aces and kings can be placed each in their own stack in the centre.
Twos must be placed on an ace of the same suit and threes on twos of the same suit etc. if the cards are in an ace stack otherwise penalty.
Red queens must be placed on a black king and black queens on red kings, jacks must be be placed on the opposite colour queens and so on and so on, if the cards are in a king stack otherwise penalty.
Cards must be transferred from king stacks to ace stacks if possible otherwise penalty.
The player keeps playing cards as long as they can place cards otherwise penalty.
If the top face up card of the discard pile can not be played then:
if the deck is empty the player turns over the discard pile and it becomes their new deck;
if there is no deck or discard pile, they have won.
The top face down card is turned over if it can be placed and their turn continues; goto step 1 otherwise.
The unplaced card is placed face up on the discard pile and their turn is over.
The player watches like a hawk as the other players take their turn ready to yell penalty.
Play continues around the circle.

I used to play this years ago.
I searched for it under "penalty" but I get games that are not this.

Perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartok_(card_game) ??


text:
How do I (self) publish a pencil and paper game?
I invented a pencil and paper game that'd be interesting to people who like Hex, Go, etc.
Since there's really nothing I can sell, nor any sort of special pieces, cards, boards, etc needed for it (being a P&P game), how can I publish it in some way to get it "out there"? I'm not really trying to make any money off it anyway.
Edit: If anyone has anything to add about the publicity aspect of this, I would like to know about that too.

Are you wanting to create a game where people make all the pieces themselves (including drawing grids, shapes, etc) or a "print and play" game where they print off a PDF of pieces and then cut them up? The publicity aspect may be slightly different depending on the answer.

Hi, the game just needs graph paper and two different pencils, markers, pens or such to be played. It's a two player abstract strategy game.

Do you have a website or a blog? The easiest way would be to publish the rules and examples on your own site, then link to that site in forum posts on related sites, eg: www.littlegolem.net

Thanks for the help everyone, I created a website for my game here: https://hexandoct.000webhostapp.com/ !
It still needs some polish, but all the content is there.

When I get to website mentioned in comments - the question is: are you sure you invented this game? Except that mystic rule that I even could not understand about player 2 becoming player 1 everything else stays same way as we played this game between lessons and in the lessons with our classmates about 30 years ago. I never new who is author of game, I even don't remember who did teach me back then, but I very doubt that you are the author of game, or you are just reinventing wheel by adding player switch rule - the only difference I find.

As I don't own that game - I don't really care much if you register it as yours, but if ever someone will challenge your authority - I still have those workbooks of mathematics from 1980's where the game was played ...  :) but they cannot prove other inventor - they could prove - it's not you :)

If your game doesn't need any materials (or those would be more easily to come by on their own, such as graph paper), I would suppose the elements of your game you're trying to ship would be the rules. Since you're not trying to distribute them commercially, the only real problem is to get it out there.
If I'm correct so far, here's what I'd do:
Pick a Licence
An important part for both you, as well as players of your game, is the licence you intend to release it under. A licence determines what you intend to do, and what people may do with it - for example, whether they may redistribute it, and whether they need to give credit to you.
If you're willing to allow remixing and redistribution, there are a number of tested licences available for choosing, and the GNU project provides some recommendations about what you choices. They are rather software-oriented, so you might want to have a look at the Creative Commons licenses as well, which work for every type of work, or specific game licenses such as the OGL (Open Game Licence).
This is an important step, seeing as some licences aren't revokeable, and depending how popular your game gets, you'll be on stable ground legal-wise. Even for smaller games, this step is worth reading into for a little bit. Of course, until you decide on a licence, your country of origin's default copyright laws will apply, but a licence will still be helpful with attribution of the original author, for example if you end up hosting it on some friend's webspace.
Launch a Web Page
The easiest, probably cheapest way would be to set up a webpage from where people would be able to download a version of your game, and possibly get additional information about it, such as errata or update information, and maybe even a discussion forum. This has a few advantages over any print-reliant method:

you will be able to publish new versions with no delay at all, and players will know where to get the latest version of the game
you save the costs of printing copies of your rules on paper, as well as shipping costs and effort for the finished products
you maybe want a webpage anyway at some point in order to advertise your game
even without a monetary interest and a free game, you can provide information on how to donate money towards you or the project easily
aside from providing written rules, you could provide videos or other media that won't work on print

Making a web page dedicated to your game (as opposed to a blog post in your [insert your probably unrelated topic here] blog) would likely be preferrable, as it will not only appear more serious, but also give you the possibility to adjust the features and layout of the page to your liking.
If you don't have any experience in making web pages, you could rely on one of many web services that offer free blogs and a user interface that doesn't require HTML or programming skills, or find a friend or person online to put one up for you. There are too many possibilities to name them all, and more specialized communities at that.
Of course, asking a professional web designer would be a possibility if you're willing to spend the money.
Advertise your Web Page
Once you have your web page up and running, you probably want people to find it. I won't be getting into much detail here since it's not directly a part of your question, but advertising it on social media, your local game stores, local and online playgroups that play similar games (as you mentioned Go), general online game communities, and friends are general good starting points in my experience.

Thank you! Can you go further into detail about the "advertising" part of it, if you had anything more to add, that you left out? I know I didn't directly ask about it, but I really want to know what you know about it.

@Eriek: I don't have a whole lot of experience on the matter, and what little I've done I can't gauge in terms of efficiency or practicability. You could always edit your question to ask for that part explicitly as well and hope for some more answers, though. What I tried to give in my answer are pointers as to what you can do without a budget, which is what I've done. Once you're willing to put down some more money, it probably makes sense to consult professionals about what to do specifically.

If the game is mathematically interesting, like Hex or Sprouts, I'd reach out to mathematicians and recreational mathematical journals and publications.

This question on Stack Academia has some good suggestions: Where to publish (recreational) mathematics without a PhD?

If the game is really simple, reach out to kids magazines

They're always looking for fresh content!

Note that the first modern Sudoku puzzle was originally published in Dell Magazines in 1979, but it was another 25 years before it achieved widespread, international adoption.  (Important to note that mass adoption was driven by an entrepreneur who recognized how to monetize it.)
By contrast, Sprouts is said to have spread like wildfire among math departments (it was created by Conway) but seems to be still relatively unknown.

You can create an entry/page for your game on BoardGameGeek and upload your rule book to the site. Once (if) the moderators accept your entry, your game will be "published".
And because a lot of board game players go to BGG, you are likely to get some traffic to your game entry if all you do is talk about it in different forums.
If you want to spend money publicizing your game, BGG also has on site paid advertising. That is a focused and targeted audience, so your money is well spent.

Board Game Geek is not a publishing site and is more of an online game resource. Sure you can add in games you yourself have designed but that is not really publishing the game. Not to mention you talk about making money off the game but make no mention of licensing the game which is something that is critical even if it is being set up that anyone can use it for free.

Under no circumstances should the author of this question pay any money to publicize this game, especially on BGG>

@JoeW maybe you should read the question before down voting an answer... The question clearly states " I'm not really trying to make any money off it anyway." All they want is to get the game out there, and with the need as specified in the question, BGG is more than adequate to get the game "out there" as is the stated goal of the question.

@TheChaz2.0: I have not recommended that they go spend money on BGG, but clearly stated that "if they want to spend money publicizing the game", then BGG is a captive and targeted audience. Given that the stated goal is not to make money, then spending money is not wise, but that is a choice for the designer.

My point that BGG is not a game publishing site still stands. Just because you submit a game to them and they chose to add it to their site does not mean that it is published. Not to mention that you have ignored all concern about license and copyright issues as even if your game is free for anyone to use you still need to ensure it it properly licensed.

And likewise, my emphatic point that OP should not spend any money to publicize this game still stands. Maybe take a step back from implying that Joe and I can't read/don't understand material conditional statements?


text:
Can you use a clue that contains a word on the board within it in an unrelated way in Codenames?
In Codenames, can you give a clue when the series of letters of one of the tiles on the table is contained within it?
For example, can you give the clue "barrier" when "bar" is on the table? Or "bandolier" and "band"?
To be clear, I'm not asking about cases where the words are clearly etymologically linked. Like "fire" and "firefighter" or "link" and "linkage". The confusion arises in cases where the words aren't clearly related, but one still entirely contains the other in an unrelated way.

Yes, you can.
While certain questions like this will be up to each play group to decide; this one is actually directly addressed in the rules.
At the bottom of page 6:

England and island were originally compound words, but in this century, island is a valid clue for
  ENGLAND. Even land is a valid clue for ENGLAND. And anybody who says you can't say sparrow when
  ROW is on the table is just trying to cause trouble.

Note: It says "Land" is valid for "England", and that "Shoe" is illegal for "Horseshoe". The difference is that "Horse" is a work, and "Eng" isn't.

@ikegami Assuming you mean "word"; I feel like that's not completely accurate; even if "Eng" happened to be a word, it wouldn't make "land" invalid unless the word "England" were considered to be a compound of the words "Eng" and "Land". As a silly example, "ring" would still be a valid clue if "tasering" were on the board, even though both "tase" and "ring" are real words.

...but it's still illegal to use ring for tasering because it's a clue about the word rather than the thing. I just kept my earlier comment simple but true.

...but you could use "ring" as a hint for "circle" even if "tasering" was on the board. Luckily, there's usually the possibility of negotiating stuff like this with your opposite spymaster, since it's a social game after all.

A better example is that "land" is also a valid clue for "Iceland".

Right my only point was nitpicking the idea that "Eng" not being a word is what makes "England" different than "Horseshoe". Tasering was an example of a word that happens to be formed by 2 words being added together; but it is not a compound word of those 2 words.

The examples you give are not good examples, because they are, in fact, etymologically related. As GendoIkari says, the rules cite "sparrow" and "row" as an example of two unrelated words. The rules say that "row" being on the table does not bar "sparrow" from being used. However, given that the rules say that clues must relate to the meaning, rather than letters of a word, the fact that "sparrow" and "row" are unrelated means that "sparrow" can't be used as a clue for "row".

Are they actually etymologically related? I was thinking of "band" as in music FWIW. Even if so I'd never call someone at my table for mixing that up since it's non obvious I'd say. Though that is why I specifically said "clearly" related in my explanation.

@Rubiksmoose they are because band has multiple meanings, one of which being "a flat, thin strip or loop of material put around something" which defines a bandolier. As long as one of the meanings makes something against the rules it applies - but as the rules say it's up to the opposing spymaster to object to it.