I think this is a good discussion to have. In the original discussion where we set our site boundaries, Brian Campbell's excellent post explicitly argued in favour of games based on luck or randomisation:
For the first category, I think that solitaire games are on topic,
while puzzles (such as Sudoku or crosswords) are off topic. But how to
distinguish solitaire games from puzzles? I believe the criterion
would be that solitaire games essentially produce an endless or large
variety of different puzzles through randomization (most solitaire
card games involve just shuffling a deck of cards, solitaire or coop
games might involve rolling dice or other forms of randomization),
while puzzles are static and new puzzles in a particular category
(such as Sudoku or crosswords) must be created by another person or
computer. I would, however, say that questions about puzzles that are
specifically related to a board or card game, and commonly used in
training for playing board and card games, would be OK; for instance,
"I'm working on this chess problem, and the book lists this solution,
but I just can't figure out why this other line of play doesn't work."
My opinion is that games which are completely luck-based are fine to ask about. Although strategy and tactics are non-existent, there are still reasonable questions about rules, probabilities, differences between editions, history, terminology, etc.
By their nature, questions on these games will tend to be rarer, but that's fine too.
At some level the off-topic dividing line is arbitrary. All games fall somewhere on the continuum between pure skill and pure luck. If pure luck games are excluded, what about games that are almost entirely luck? In other words, there is no a priori reason to ban these questions; explicitly denying one end of the spectrum is unnecessary.