text:
Rule translation differences
This morning, I came across this question. It had already been thoroughly answered. However, the answer contradicts the rules as I know them. After some digging, I found that the game in question, Citadels, is published by three different companies.

For Citadels, I have three distinct contracts. Hans im Glueck has the publishing rights in German, Dutch and Czech, Millenium in French and Spanish. Fantasy Flight Games originally published the game in English and in the Scandinavian languages, but we regularly add other languages to the list.
  (source)

It turns out these publishers hold distinctly different interpretations of the game's rules. Some examples include,
Fantasy Flight Games

(The queen) receives three gold if you are sitting next to the King (or the Emperor).
(The warlord) may not, however, destroy a district in a city that is already completed by having eight districts.
You may not build a district such that you have two identical districts (two “Castle” cards, two “Market” cards, etc.) in your city.

Hans im Glueck (999 Games)

The queen receives three gold at the start of her turn if she sits next to the player with the wooden king.
The warlord may not destroy districts from cities that already has eight districts.
(no equivalent rule found)

The first two examples are rules with contradictory interpretations. The third is entirely nonexistent in 999 Games' rule book.
How to respond to questions regarding this game? Is there a site wide inclination towards US rules? Or should a good answer describe both versions? Unlike with Solitaire or Checkers, the existence of different versions is not a very well known fact.
Sources:

English rules
English FAQ
Dutch rules (base game)
Dutch rules (expansion)
German rules (base game)
German rules (expansion)

If anyone can find the French rules, I'd be much obliged. The designer is a native French speaker so I expect those rules would be closest to the designer's intentions. Alls I can find are plain text files, and I have no way of telling whether those are original, or translated back from the English rules.

EDIT: For future reference, I created a canonical question about these rule differences for Citadels in particular. This is not a one size fits all solution, please think of this answer as one for a more general problem.
I don't think it's particularly important to choose a language for your answer. If it's known that there are differences between certain versions, a good answer should include those differences.
In the Citadels example, particularly these two rules:

Fantasy Flight Games: The queen receives three gold if you are sitting next to the King (or the Emperor).
999 Games: The queen receives three gold at the start of her turn if she sits next to the player with the wooden king.

These result in completely different behavior. In the US, you want to be next to the person holding the card. In the EU, you want to be next to the person who has the wooden king piece. The wooden king piece is always in play (as opposed to the card), but it can change places during the king/emperor's turn. In my opinion, an answer that only discusses the Fantasy Flight Games version is incomplete, and doesn't answer the question for all future visitors.

Unless otherwise specified in the question the rule source should be considered English as this is an English based website. However that being said when the rules where thrown into Google translate they can out very similar to the English versions.
As for your examples from what I can see they seem the same in each language though I didn't see the restriction on districts in the Dutch version I did see it int he German version.
Dutch - Base (Google Translated)
Ending the game

The game ends when a player 8 (or in the case of the master builder 8 or more)
  has buildings.
  However, the round is finished. Each player scores after the last round as follows
  points:
  • All items for the buildings in his city
  • 3 points if the player premises of any 5 colors possession
  • 4 points for the first player owns 8 buildings
  • 2 points for each player who after the last round also 8 buildings
  Gold pieces and hand cards yield no points .
  The player who has the most points is the winner of the game. In a tie
  the player with only his buildings with the most points .

German - Base (Google Translated)
Ending the game

The game ends when a player interprets the eighth building map.
  The round is played to the end . Each player receives
  Now the following points :
  • All points of all building cards in his city.
  • 3 points if the player building different cards in all 5
  Has ausliegen colors .
  • 4 points for those players who first building 8 cards
  has ausliegen .
  • 2 points for those players who also building 8 cards
  interpret .
  • The gold does not score .
  The winner is the player who achieved the most points
  can . With a tie, the player with the most wins
  Points can achieve alone with his building cards .

Building Districts

A character has made it known begins his
  Turn:
  • Income: He takes 2 gold pieces
  or
  he takes 2 building cards from the deck,
  selects one of them and takes them into your hand. The
  he puts another card on the discard pile.
  • building action: Then he must 1 building card from the
  Lend a hand in front of him on the table and continue to build his own city.
  He pays the specified number of gold pieces on the map
  in the middle of the table.
  Note: Each building must designed in a city only once
  be. It may therefore e.g. in a town already has a
  Taverne is no more tavern are designed.
  • Character Action: At any time during his turn, he may
  use his character property. This means that
  you have to choose a time when
  alternating his property (see also examples on
  End of the description of the character cards).
  With 2 or 3 players, each player has 2 characters and is therefore
  2 times per lap on the train. Players can use this tactic,
  by about saving the receipts of the first character to
  to build the next an expensive building

German - Expansion (Google Translated)

Immediately if a player builds the bell tower , he must decide whether the
  Game after the 7th or 8th after the building is completed. If the
  Bell tower destroyed, always played until 8 building

(This rule says the original end condition is restored if the bell tower is removed not that the game doesn't end if the bell tower is removed after the 7th district is completed and 7 is the current winning conditions)
English - Bell Tower Card Text

When you place the Bell Tower in your city, you may announce that the game will end after the round in which a player first places his 7th district. You may do this even if the Bell Tower is your 7th district. If the Bell Tower is later destroyed, the game end conditions return to normal

From what I can tell in the case of the bell tower the rules are the same in all 3 languages its just how people see them after translation is different.

I'm not sure if we should consider English as the rules source, even if it is an english site. The game was designed by one person or a small team and other people translated the game in different languages. I think the original version should be treated superior, although it is good if language-differences are pointed out. If it wasn't language but revision, it would also be helpful to point out the differences, but prefer the newest in that case.

@Mnementh It doesn't do anyone any good if rules are posted in a language that they can't understand and need to use a translation service to understand. Worse if it is in a format that they can't simply copy and paste into the translation service.

The one giving the answer should explain it in english, but source the explanation with the original version if possible and relevant (versions are different). Also, a really good answer should point out the differences between language versions if relevant for the question. Sure, not everyone knows all versions, but thats one reason to ask on such a site, to find more knowledgeable persons.


text:
all-purpose mouseover images
This request has been status-declined because it was scoped as a way to show only Dominion cards. That's not what I'm looking for.
Then there's this user script that works only for MtG cards. That's not what I'm looking for either, I want to be able to mouseover any image.
What I'd like to be able to do, is to include images in a post (same way we do already, using imgur), except then hide the images behind a mouseover.
This can be used for Dominion, Smash Up, Yu-gi-oh, Pokémon, Catan, Stone Age, Fluxx... anything with cards. Experienced players won't need this information as they know the cards, so including them takes up unnecessary space.
For example
Right now we have a way of embedding images, using this syntax:
[![Monopoly Money][3]][3]

[3]: https://i.sstatic.net/OiWePm.jpg

That becomes:

Also we have a way of embedding hyperlinks, that works like this:
[Monopoly Money][3]

That becomes this:
Monopoly Money
I guess what I want, would look exactly like the Monopoly Money hyperlink, only if you hover your mouse over the hyperlink it shows you the picture without having to click on it.

Possible duplicate of Is there a way to make an image show up when you hover over a link? Dominion was just an example in the other question. You appear to be asking for the same thing.

@Rainbolt I know. But the other question was misinterpreted and thereby declined so I made one that is more clear.

One issue I can see that was brought up on the other question is for many of those games there might not be an official source of images that we are allowed to use. And if there isn't one of those it might be a lot of work collecting the images (especially for games like Yu-gi-oh and Pokemon that have thousands of cards), it would also bring up questions of copyright and are we allowed to use those images.

@diego You don't need an official source of images. If I understand correctly, you will provide the image link when you write a post, and it will become a hover-over link. For example, something like [my image](https:www.foo.com/image.jpg) would become a hover-over link. It doesn't matter whether image.jpg is "official".

@diego I think what you're addressing is a problem with all images on the SE network. The process of searching for and uploading images does not change with this added feature, only the way the image is displayed inside a question or answer.

@Rainbolt I don't know how to make it any more clear. I started the question with "I'm not looking for X" so if people still think I'm looking for X they need to read.

@freekvd Maybe you could use a real example, as I did in my previous comment?

@Rainbolt Something like that I could see using, I was reading the request as more like the current autocard functionality so you would have something like [dominion:Village]

@diego this is not about autocard functionality, that's been status:declined in the question I'm linking to.

I'd like to point out that in the case of Magic: the Gathering, a link to the card isn't just a link to an image; it's a link to a page with useful information about the card, including the card text. If you want to link to just a card image for other games, you will lose some utility. For example, recent Yu-Gi-Oh link to wiki pages for their cards. Changing those links to plain images would be a detrimental edit that I would reject.

@murgatroid99 that's an interesting point. If the feature is added, a discussion about whether or not to enforce its use seems appropriate. I could argue that external links are unreliable on the long run, so hosting our own images has its merits. But that would be for argument's sake as I think you're right about your rejection of these edits.

I guess Magic has the additional benefit that the autocard links we generate are all but guaranteed to be valid by the game's rules

I don't understand how this got 3 close votes. That other question got declined for being about Dominion.

@freekvd I explained why I voted to close in my very first comment. You basically responded that you know your question is a duplicate, but decided to ask anyway because the existing question was misinterpreted. You could have clarified the older question, flagged it, and made a case to have the status-declined tag removed. But, because you put so much effort into doing it your way, I went ahead and retracted my close vote and voted to close the other one instead.

There is a Chrome extension that will do this for you: Imagus. It is also available for Firefox.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why was this 'obsolete' flag declined?
This answer was commented on by the poster, and the comment should have been part of the answer. So I edited the comment into the answer, and flagged the comment as obsolete.
This flag was declined:

The information is 100% redundant. Why not delete it?

Pat, the answer on the duplicate says "When the content of the comments has been fully incorporated into an answer, or an issue has been unambiguously resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, then I tend to delete them immediately." That would seem to apply here, but obviously you don't think so. Could you explain?

Your flag was probably declined by a moderator on this site who adheres to some rather... "unique" flag handling rules. He will not delete comments that are recent unless they are actively harmful, even if they are truly obsolete. You should consider the flags on this site to read like "obsolete and old", "not constructive and actively harmful", "too chatty and actively harmful", etc.

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


text:
Do untagged questions need 'fixing'?
The description of the untagged tag states that its presence indicates that those questions need editing.
However, what exactly can be done for those questions?
For example, the two oldest questions on the site are both untagged and are both asking for rules clarifications:

What is considered suprise
How does DeGray's Pilebunker chip work when trashing Gems of size 2+?

Presumably, these questions once had game-specific tags which have since been auto pruned.
If the untagged tag is a bad thing
Is it desirable for users that can create tags to recreate the game specific tags?
Or, is the intention that these questions remain untagged for as long as there is only one question per unpopular* game and then the tag should be recreated?
If the untagged tag is not a bad thing
But rather entirely valid, should the description of the tag be changed to remove the part about requiring editing and perhaps state that some questions are expected to be untagged.
Should the requirement for at least one tag be lifted for this site?

*only in terms of number questions on BG.SE.

Keep reading the answer I posted to the linked question, "Use whatever tag you wish"

Ah, apologies, I made the same assumption as the original questioner and failed to read all of the comments. I have changed the focus of my question and no longer believe it is a duplicate, or at least not of the one it has been marked against.

See http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/930/are-tags-mysteriously-disappearing/1128#1128. The official suggestion is to write a tag wiki, or ask another question. As far as leaving singletons untagged, I think that's fine. Tagging is most useful as a grouping mechanism, and the questions will still come up in the search, with or without tagging.


text:
Should questions involving computer versions of card/board games be allowed?
Engines that play Mangala?
In this question I asked for a Mancala/Mangala game engine. Since this is a computer version of a board game, it was closed. However, Where can I practice MTG draft online and actually play against my opponents for free?, is exactly that. The site must take a decision on this. Please let us decide if we should allow all or none.

Honestly, this meta question is kind of unnecessary. There are already 3 reopen votes on your question, and the close reason given clearly allows computer versions of board and card games. Your question was closed incorrectly, and that's it. We already have a clear decision on what the rule should be.

@murgatroid99 I am sorry, but I cannot see reopen votes. Thought I had only one.

Are we going to have a distinction between 'computer version of a board game' (aka, something you actually play the game on) vs a 'game engine' (something that you program and it plays/simulates something for you)?


text:
Update Tour to include Game Rec/Shopping in off-topic section
As the title says the Tour currently does not include the 'Game Rec/Shopping' reason to not ask a question. It includes the other explicit categories of off-topic questions listed on the On-Topic page, and I think it should be updated to include this one too.

I +1 this.  Other stack exchange sites allow this. Because this site does not, it should be explicit, especially when dealing with the love of board games.  Sometimes it can be hard to find a game that you are looking for, making this seem like a good place to go to ask questions. If not, then the tour should be updated to explicitly state recommendations are off topic.

I would like to point out that most Stack Exchange sites do not actually allow recommendation questions. In fact, the only site I know of that does allow them is the Software Recommendations site.

Hardware Recommendations exists too. But in both cases, they have fairly high standards about asking questions, that it's taken a lot of time and effort to work out, and plenty of too-fuzzy questions get closed. If we were to follow their example, folks probably still wouldn't be all that happy.

RPG Stack Exchange allows various kinds of recommendations, but recently ruled out product recommendations. The main reason was: a lot of established users were taking umbrage with the rules, so we couldn't have nice things; otherwise the rules largely worked OK. (The primary rule people took issue was "say or demonstrate you've used that product for what you're recommending it for" which is rather important.)

@doppelgreener Just to clarify, are you talking about recommendations or requests for recommendations? It sounds like you are talking about the former, while this post is concerned with the latter.

@Rainbolt We have a standard form of question where someone asks "how do I realise this character concept in this game?" or "I'm almost done with this character concept, how do I do this last 5%?" and we answer how.

That's not really "recommendation" questions, as the term applies here. We specifically ban recommendations for games, expansions, and similar. I think that what you're describing would fall into the category that we just call "subjective".


text:
Moving recommendation request guidance
I asked a question that included a recommendation for games - and this was (correctly) flagged as off topic. I had made sure to read the "What types of questions should I avoid asking?" page, and it did not mention recommendations in any way. It was later pointed out that it appears in the "What topics can I ask about here?", but hidden in some caveats at the bottom.
Can we move this guidance to the "What types of questions should I avoid asking?" page?

We have no control over the What types of questions should I avoid asking? page. If you want control, then you should probably check out this very old feature request. Until then, the very first line of that page says...

First, make sure that your question is on-topic for this site.

The link leads you to the page that we do have control over, the bottom of which reads:

If your question is not specifically on-topic for Board and Card Games Stack Exchange, it may be on topic for another Stack Exchange site. We're not the right place to ask questions about:

[...]
Game Recommendation/Shopping questions, this includes all questions that could be phrased like:

Best game for ... ?
Which game is like ... ?

I think that the message is quite clear, and does not need to be reworded or reorganized.

"What types of questions should I avoid asking?" Is a generic page that is shared by all sites, we do not have any control over it. So no we cannot move that information to that page.
Restructuring the "What topics can I ask about here?" might not be a bad thing though, but I don't have any suggestions for edits to make at this time.

I think the following could be restructured, to make it easier to conclude that game recommendations are off topic. I'm not entirely sure how, though.

If your question is not specifically on-topic for Board and Card Games Stack Exchange, it may be on topic for another Stack Exchange site. We're not the right place to ask questions about:

Computer games, try gaming.stackexchange.com
Role Playing games, try rpg.stackexchange.com
Puzzles, try puzzling.stackexchange.com
Game Recommendation/Shopping questions, this includes all questions that could be phrased like:

Best game for ... ?
Which game is like ... ?

All of this is steering towards a list of alternative sites (that speak for themselves), except for the last bullet. Shopping questions are not on topic for any SE site, so it's not possible to list an alternative site here. Instead I think this should receive extra emphasis, for starters by giving it a separate paragraph.


text:
Isn't intellectual property (marked off-topic somewhere) part of the game-design process (on-topic in the help center)?
Context
This question What is the duration of copyright on a board game map? is marked as off-topic.
Also has this one How long does the copyright for a game last, after it is out of print?
Also this question What aspects of a game are not protected under copyright? has received comments suggesting it's off-topic.
My question
Why are those supposed to be "off-topic" if here in the help center it states that "designing board games" is on-topic?
It specifically says Board and Card Games [...] is for expert Q&A from people who like [...] designing board games [...].
IMHO, protection of the design is inherently part the design process itself; as while in the process of design, depending on the protection you may get, you may decide to set the implementations of your ideas in some or some other way.
My point of view of why this would enlarge the community
During the last 2 years I've designing a board game, and I'm focusing a lot on creation of the rules as well as thinking of implementation details.
But in the process of "design", I may choose to implement some ideas in ways A, B or C. I think this community about "board games" mainly focuses on "rules of board games" and that's great. But IMHO it should not be only "as an amateur" that we can participate here, but also if we "want to be pros" or if there are "already pros" around, the same way StackOverflow is not only for "free coding" but also "coders that do that professionally".
As a board-game player I love this site.
BUT as a board-game creator I would also have this "boardgames" site as my "main entry point to the domain of knwledge about board-games" the same way "stackoverflow" is for the domain of programming or "superuser" is for the system administrators.
Wouldn't this tarnish this community?
I don't think so. StackOverflow is enourmously big. There, it is only allowed to talk about programming. But the fact that there are questions about "Java" does not affect a coder that is exclusively interested in "PHP".
And that is great! That's why tags are so powerful. They can leave alltogether without either conflicing by the "mere" existence of the other. Does a PHP programmer mind that questions about java exist? No. The only thing he needs is that PHP get well indexed in google so when he seeks for something he gets it. Simply StackOverflow is all about programming.
So in this comunity, I feel that the "connecting line" is all about "expert Q&A about board games" and "design of board games" is specifically welcome. Should not bother anybody that those "legal questions" that are intimately related to the process of the design, are welcome here in this site.
Request
I'd like that the community finally clears-out this gray-area: Is "protection of a game" a sub-process that is part of the main process of "designing board games"?
IMHO, yes, it is.
But maybe I'm not seeing reasons other users might have to ban this out beyond "I'm not interested in that so I don't want others to talk about that".
If so is agreed, in the https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic I suggest to clarify maybe by saying something like:

Board and Card Games Stack Exchange is for expert Q&A from people who
  like playing, discussing the strategy of, and getting rules
  clarifications of board games, designing board games (and any
  related process involved in that design, either amateur or
  professional) or modifying the rules of existing board games.

(Of course this text may be improved)
Alternatively, instead of modifying the on-liner description, maybe this needs clarification on the body of the help center.
What about adding a heading the same level than "How do we define Board Games?" and "What are some examples of boardgames that are on topic here?" saying the following?

Designing board games
The process about designing board-games is complex and multidisciplinar, ranging from the most abstract concepts like creating the rules of the game, to the most tangible aspects of it like how to physically implement certain markers or counters, to the distribution of it (how do you design your game so it gets actually played on the physical table of a player living in your antipodas).
It is on-topic any question that any "game designer" needs to solve, ranging from designing an amateur game for the family to designing a game that is to be industrialized and sold world-wide.
This explicitly includes questions about (and is not limited to):

Designing the ruleset of the game (the abstract definition of its essence).
Testing the game and balancing the gameplay (methods for fine-tuning, iteration on the definition, finding testers, etc.).
Implementation of the concepts physical objects (boards, counters, etc.).
Manufacturing (materials, durability, user experience, etc.).
Legal issues (restrictions of the rules or content in certain countries, protection of the intellectual property, etc.)
Commercialization and sales (channels to distribute board-games, wholesalers, retailers, economic conditions, etc).
Logistics (design of the game should consider if you manufacture in one country and sell in another one, or where can you locally make it).

All this is on-topic provided that 2 restrictions are met:

Must be board-game related, so all the restrictions on the previous paragraphs apply (playable by physical humans around a physical table, etc).
Must show a specific question about you have already investigated (you must have done your homework before asking, as in all other StackExchange sites) and which answer is not opinion-based but facts-based or data-based and contrastable by any other user as "the correct answer".

Potential tags
Maybe tags like game design and its sub-topics like distribution, manufacturing, legal, or even thier sub-sub-topics like intellectual property would help to classify questions for indexers like google.

See http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/1129/card-game-legal-questions-are-off-topic-apparently-can-this-be-added-to-the-of

@murgatroid99 imho same answer different question. If anyone disagrees on this, please dupe the other question as this one is better written/researched.

The problem with the questions that you linked is that they are questions about legal issue and the law in general.  With questions of that nature the answers will vary based on a lot of factors.

What countries the game is copyrighted in.
Where the game is manufactured, and is it still being produced in small quantities
What countries the game is sold in
What country the person who is asking is in
How the person asking intends to use the content
What content in general they are asking about
General issues dealing with complicated legal issues at the local and international

In general unless you are in the legal profession it can be very easy to give some very bad advice which is why in general questions that involve legal advice are off topic on stack exchange sites. There is one site that does target the legal advice area and questions like those might be on topic there.

If you're dealing with "copyright" issues, the appropriate site is Law SE https://law.stackexchange.com/
You're no longer dealing with "games." You are dealing with LAW as it applies to games.


text:
Are casino games on-topic here?
I see this meta post
But does this make all casino style gaming on topic here? There is an Expert Casino Gaming and Gambling in Area 51, but it isn't gaining much traction.

Your link is broken.

Link fixed. Thanks @murgatroid99

OK, now I'm not exactly sure what you're asking about. That post says that dice games are on-topic. Card games are obviously on topic.

Sports betting, horse gambling, keno, roulette. Any of those.

@murgtroid99 Read the first sentence as "I see this meta post and it doesn't cover the topic I want to ask about as specifically as I would like so please don't confuse this as a duplicate question." and the post makes a little more sense.

Thanks for that clarification Rainbolt. That's exactly what I was trying to convey.

That question/answer specifically means that tabletop dice games on topic; what you're asking about is not just dice games. The full version of the criteria it mentioned for board/card/dice/tabletop games on topic here:

Be playable on or around a table
Have objective rules of play and win conditions
Offer dynamic challenges, either through other players, randomization, or both
Be playable by hand, by human players implementing all of the rules

A game must meet all of these in order to be on topic.
Sports betting and horse gambling most certainly do not meet these criteria. It sounds like keno uses a computer, so it's also off topic.
Roulette... could I guess be on topic? It fits all the criteria. I don't think it sounds like a terribly interesting game - you're not making really meaningful decisions - but the criteria don't require that. See also Are questions about “games” that require no decision-making acceptable? - it's asking about games like Candyland, which we've decided are fine.
So in the end, a lot of the popular gambling games are on topic here - because they have a board/card/dice game component in addition to the fact that people wager money on them. But wagering money on something doesn't make it into a board game; gambling in general is not on topic here, and if you want to talk about that, you'll want to support that proposal you mention.

I agree that roulette isn't incredibly interesting. I guess the others could fall into the dynamic challenge aspect (randomization).

@BrianRobbins Edited to clarify a bit. The others may perhaps have a dynamic challenge, but they aren't playable by hand around a table. Roulette does seem to be on topic - I was pointing out that the main reason it seems like it might not be (not interesting) is not actually a criterion, so it's fine.


text:
Is this question about games with varied win/loss states a game recommendation question?
Recently I flagged this question which I thought to be a quite obvious game recommendation question, based on the following:

It asks "Are there any games where" a particular criterion is true.
It has accrued nine answers, four of which are, in essence, "Here's an example and why it fits."

It's surprising to me that no one in the comments of the question had even brought up the issue yet.
It is my understanding that game recommendation questions are off-topic, as described in Why are game recommendation questions off-topic? and Should we ban game recommendation questions?
However, the flag was declined. Was I in error?

You should note that only 3 people commented on that question since it was edited to have the [recommendations] tag; one of them was the person who asked the question, and one was you.

I didn't decline this flag, but I would have if I'd seen it. Although it's not worded well, I don't think this is really a question about listing instances. It's about whether an entire class of board games is feasible. Would a game where some people neither win nor lose be interesting, or fulfilling to play? What would be positive properties of such a game? Indeed, the accepted answer approaches the question in this spirit.
I would 1) encourage the author to reword the question to avoid answerers providing individual examples as existence proofs, and 2) vote to close if the OP didn't respond positively to my comment. I don't see this as a question that needs crushing with a mod hammer - I think the community can iterate here to the right solution without us.

I should note that since I wrote this, I had a discussion with the OP in the comments, and it seems his view is not quite what I had guessed here. I've asked him to comment further in this question.

The question isn't asking for a list of games, it's asking if a type of game exists at all.  An answer could exist that is clear, concrete, and well-defined.
Does the category exist?
Here are some similar questions, asking if a category exists at all. I think these are not asking for lists:

Has anyone ever been to the top of Mt. Siple?
Did anyone write a biography about Charlemagne while he was alive?
Are there any counterexamples to the Pólya conjecture?
Do any precolumbian board games survive?

A single piece of evidence that the category exists would be sufficient to answer the question; showing that the category doesn't exist would do likewise.  Once answered in such a way, additional proofs would provide no benefit.
And that's what Stack Exchange is really about -- getting a single, clear response that decisively answers the question.
List everything in the category.
These, however, are similar, but are just asking for lists:

Who has been to the top of Mt. Everest?
What biographies were written of Churchill while he was alive?
What numbers are prime?
Which board games were invented before 1900?

A single piece of evidence wouldn't fully answer these questions.  In fact, a complete answer would have to enumerate all members of the category.  Each answer that adds another member to the list would only be a small piece of the true answer to the question.
And that's what Stack Exchange isn't about -- gradually piecing together a complete response through reading many, many answers to a question.
What I think we should decide.
I suggest we refine the concept of "recommendation questions".  Questions that can be fully answered by mentioning a single game should be on topic.
Consider that we already accept questions like:

What's that game where you throw colored sticks on the table?

This is very similar to asking:

Is there a category of games where you throw colored sticks on the table?

In that vein, I suggest we allow category-existence questions under the same rules we should use for game-identification questions.

The attribute of the thing being sought must be clearly described.  We wouldn't want game-identification questions like "What's that one with the cards or something?", just like we wouldn't want category-existence questions like "Are there any games with cards or something?".
A good category-existence/game-identification question delineates a small set.  If someone asks for help identifying a game that they played in 1990 that used dice and cards and a board, the description is clear, but it describes too large a set.  Likewise, if someone asks if games ever use dice, it's such a common feature that it's a poor category-existence question.  Asking if there were any Navajo-language games published in 1990 is a much smaller set.
Most importantly, the correct answer only needs to mention a single game.  A good game-identification question is fully answerable with a single game -- the one they're looking for.  A good category-existence question is fully answerable with a single game -- a member of that category.  A poor question (of either of these types) couldn't be answered without a list.

The fact that you only need one example doesn't prevent people from answering with a lot more. I still think it's a fine question though, but it might be much better if you focused on what you're actually trying to learn. You're designing a game, it sounds like, but you removed the game-design tag. And I'm assuming you want to learn from other examples, so it could be reasonable to ask about things besides just existence, the things you actually want to know.

@Jefromi, someone else removed the game-design tag, I put it back.  The main thing I was hoping to learn was whether such a concept was already in use or not.

Regarding people answering with superfluous examples -- how are those any different from low-quality answers to any other question?

They wouldn't be low-quality, they'd be more answers that are just as valid as the original. We don't have a policy where only one person gets to answer. Sure, we frown on total duplicate answers, but we don't stop people from trying to provide new explanations or justifications for the same overall answer. You can't turn a "big list" question into a "one correct answer" question just by declaring that the first answer is the correct answer. (Your question's is probably still fine since it's probably not a big list, not because there's only one answer.)

But of course, you can see from the existing answers that more than one answer was posted and the ones beyond the first are not low quality. So your first two points are good (the second is basically "don't ask things that are too broad"), but the third isn't what "saves" this sort of question.

It looks like an obvious game recommendations question to me.
Let's ignore the tag for a moment, since I'm the one who retagged it (I left an explanation in the edit description that you can go read if you want). Instead, let's look at the content.

The question describes two categories of games.
The question asks if there are any games belonging to a third category.

Let me reiterate that second bullet point. The question literally says..

Are there any games where [...]

If this isn't a game recommendations question, I don't know what is.
It's not a bad question. It has cool diagrams and stuff. The author communicated clearly. The only thing wrong with it is that game recommendations happen to be off topic here. That warrants closure, at least until this community changes their policy on game recommendation questions.


text:
Broken links in answers
Do we have a policy on broken links?
I came across an answer that had a broken link.  In this case the answer was little more than the link in question. I think the policy might depend on whether the answer includes non-link content.
I managed to find an archive.org copy of the original, and I edited the question with the updated link.  Should I have just flagged it instead?

In general, when you find a broken link, edit the post to contain a working version of the link, if you can find one. If not, just remove the link altogether. Since anyone can suggest or submit edits, there's no need to flag just for this.
If the post should be flagged for another reason, then sure, go ahead and flag it for that reason. But that's a separate, independent issue from fixing broken links.

Answers that contain no information directly on the page, even if they have a link to information, should be flagged as "Not an Answer". Alternatively, you can edit the answer to include the information from the link. But answers should answer the question, with external reference material as supplementary.


text:
Can we please reopen this question? 'What do boardgame publishers do?'
What do board game publishers do? What are the difference between them?
I'm satisfied, from the discussion in the comments, that this question is off-topic.
It seems like a perfectly answerable question, and would invite a broader scope of questions around board game design and publishing.

That question isn't closed because it's off topic. It's closed because it's overly broad and (related) not clear what specifically they're asking for.

@murgatroid99 But it's not overly broad. It's a generally broad question that can be given a specific and comprehensive answer.

I have edited the question to ask some more specific questions, and give an idea of what kind of answer I'm looking for.

The problem now is that your question is very very broad. Each of those questions should probably be their own question, and not all rolled into one.

@diego I'm happy to ask them as separate questions, but I imagine that other people won't be.

I would also recommend asking separate questions. "Do publishers do manufacturing?" and "Do publishers design games?" can be asked and and answered independently, and we prefer to separate independent questions whenever possible.

If separated, I would still vote to close "What do board game publishers do?" as too broad, and "What is the difference between board game publishers?" as unclear. "What is the difference between apples?" is also an unclear question. "What is the difference between granny smith apples and red delicious apples?" is a clear, answerable question.

@Rainbolt I was mostly talking about spinning off the bulleted questions, and any other similar ones they have. I agree the "What do board game publishers do?" and "What is the difference between board game publishers?" are both not good questions.

@diego That's a great suggestion (I was responding to another comment, not yours). If each of the bulleted questions were supplemented with some amount of initial research, I think they would all make good questions.

Too Broad
Your question is vague and doesn't state a specific problem.  Questions that ask for general knowledge (could be reframed as "I'd like to know XXX") are often too broad and can be closed for that reason.  If it takes a book to properly answer, this isn't the place.
No Research
The question also demonstrates very little investigation on your part.  A brief googling gave me tons of information.  Most of the boardgames I've backed on Kickstarter contain updates with a lot of information from the designers & publishers.  You may have some of this knowledge, but your question doesn't convey that.
If you demonstrate that you've done some initial research and focus your question on clarifying something that still confuses you, your odds of getting a good answer go up.
The XY Problem
It's also possible that you have a distinct problem in mind and believe that knowing more about game publishers is the missing piece you need to solve it.  It's better to lead with the actual problem you are facing, we can then focus on helping you directly instead of trying to answer vague questions that probably won't give you the full answers you seek.
Some examples:

How can I get my game published?
How can I get a job with Asmodee or a similar game publisher?
How much do game publishers pay?
Is this typical?  I sent my game to three publishers, two returned it unopened and the third offered me only a 3% royalty.

I don't necessarily see the problem with your question. It's only a broad question if you go into every detail, which is not necessary to provide you with a useful answer.
The sad part about the answer is that a lot of the differences between publishers are based entirely on choice.
In the end, a publisher is just a brand that puts a name on a line of products so they have more leverage in the market. Whether or not they make or buy their pieces, make or buy their game concepts, and which terms and conditions they use for their partners, all depend on the choices they make.


text:
What's wrong with this question and answer?
This question
https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/29443/game-where-you-guess-which-cards-come-out-of-a-semi-shuffled-deck/29444?noredirect=1#comment39886_29444
Outlines a specific game mechanic, saying 'name this game'.
This is an open opportunity for anyone to say 'that sounds a bit like xyz game'.
Both my question and my answer both got lots of downvotes. What's actually wrong with it?
Curiously, it has received no close votes. Not off topic?

Your question seems to really be "I made up this game.  Does it already exist?"  It doesn't help that you then attempted to "answer" your own question with a nonsense answer.

Your question is an abuse of the identify-this-game question type. That tag is intended for questions that are asking to identify a specific game that actually exists based on details that the asker can remember. This is made very clear in the tag description

What is this game? (Include as many details as possible, so we aren't left guessing!)

And your answer does not really answer the question as the tags imply the question should be answered. Those answers are supposed to refer to a game that already existed; making up a game on the spot that just happens to match the description in the question is not a valid answer to an identify-this-game.
The only reason that your question doesn't have close votes is because (by my reading of the rules) it just barely skirts the line of being technically on topic. In a vacuum, the question is a completely valid identify-this-game question. On the other hand, based on what you wrote in your answer and this meta question, a good case could be made that what you are actually asking is a recommendation question, and since those are off topic, those votes are going to start coming in.


text:
Are questions about a specific games design off topic?
In Stackexchange.arqade, people can't ask questions about "why" developers made certain decisions (ex: "why is the max level in Final Fantasy 99?" would be considered off topic).
Therefore, my question is - should similar questions about board games be considered off topic?
The example I have is here: Building Limit in Lords or Waterdeep
Now, I personally think the asker intended on asking about the rules of the game, rather than asking why the game was made that way. However, others disagree.
If the linked question is about why the game was made that way, isn't that off topic? I mean, the answers are endless:

Developers thought 9 would be the maximum feasible number
Manufacturers only had room on one cardboard sheet to make tokens.
Developers all picked an arbitrary number and went with an average.
9 was the lead developers favorite number.

etc..

The question asked and the argument presented are completely unrelated.
Is game design on topic?
Game design in general is clearly on topic. The first paragraph of the Help Center will back me up, and there's also this old meta post. If game design is on topic, then a specific game's design is on topic.
Are primarily opinion based questions on topic?
No.
Are questions that ask "why" on topic?
I can only demonstrate this through examples.

Why is the earth round?

Objectively answerable

Why you gotta be so rude?

Not objectively answerable

Do you see the difference? "The earth is round." is a fact. "You are rude." is an opinion. The "why" really had no part to play here.
"The game was designed this way." is also a factual statement. You should let the question stand and just downvote the bad answers and upvote the good ones.

"Why was a game designed this way" could have many answers, is the point I'm trying to make. There may rarely be a factual answer, but "because that's the way it is" isn't an answer. Otherwise, I could ask "why does 7 wonders come with only X gold tokens?", or "why aren't there more crisis cards in Battlestar Galactica?"

@Othya The potential for many answers is not automatically a bad thing. "Why does 7 Wonders come with only X gold tokens?" may have an authoritative answer, or the best answer might just be "The developers did not explain their reasons." If the top voted answer is just speculation and opinions, then the voters are at fault.

That's fair, and you make a good point.


text:
Markdown mods for Magic the Gathering?
I have seen that there is a special tag supported in the markup for Magic the Gathering [mtg...], but it's not documented in:
https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/editing-help
1) What is the full description of that feature?  (Based on this question: Can the Magic card auto link feature be improved?, it looks like this feature has been changing.)
2) Are there other markdown mods that aren't in the documentation?

When you include [mtg:Card Name], it is equivalent to writing [Card Name](http://www.wizards.com/magic/autocard.asp?name=Card%20Name). That means that it creates a link, where the link text is the name of the card, and it links to the gatherer entry for that card. It is important to note that due to a gatherer bug, a card with an apostrophe (such as Acolyte's Reward) in its name cannot be properly linked this way.
There is also apparently a special syntax for Go boards.

We also support rendering for Go boards with special syntax: http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/425/can-we-integrate-software-to-show-go-and-chess-positions/642#642

Is this still up-to-date?

The general idea is still the same: [mtg:Card Name] gives you a link to that card. The link URL may have changed since that but that's really an implementation detail.

I think it is worth adding an answer here, that this syntax is documented on the documentation page for the Magic the Gathering Tag.

Can we add some information about those special markdowns (which I assume are specific only to Boardgames SE) to help pages?
I only found out about this feature from some random comment.

Unfortunately we do not have the ability to edit any of the help pages - they're shared by the entire network and authored by SE staff. We can only edit our on topic help page.

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


text:
So I'm working on a Java library for Magic: the Gathering
...And I wasn't sure what to do about it, because it seems like it would be off-topic here for being about programming, but it would be off-topic at Programmers.SE for being about a card game.
Basically, I'm looking for some help with some of the harder parts of writing this software, so I was thinking of starting a chat room to see if anyone was interesting in discussing the finer points Magic mechanics, such as whether a colorless mana symbol is really a symbol.  But I wasn't which site to start it under, or even if it's a good idea.  Is there a good way to handle this?
Edit: Initial release of the library on GitHub
I don't feel super-confident about the state it's in, but I just need to get it out there, and I think it's good enough.  I'd certainly appreciate any feedback, from the people who answered/ commented on this, and of course anyone else who's interested.

This has been bugging me, so I have to say it: I think I know Magic pretty well, and I have no idea what you mean by your example discussion point ("whether a colorless mana symbol is really a symbol").

@murgatroid99 Well, certain cards count mana symbols, but no card counts colorless mana in a cost.  It's the only type of symbol that doesn't have a symbol, only a number.  And unlike all other symbols, it's not repeated to show how much there is.  This is reflected in how my manacost data structure works.  Basically, I have a Symbol enum, and colorless is not included.

I'm not sure I understand the first sentence, but it seems like "converted mana cost" is exactly this. But, for the rest, colorless mana symbols are in fact symbols: see rule 107.4 for details.

I don't mean that they're not technically symbols according to the rules of the game, but that they behave in a much different way than other symbols.  I really should release my current version of the library so people like you can offer criticism, I'm just trying to figure out how to reach a decent number of people who would be interested in checking it out.  And by the first sentence, I meant devotion/ chroma, basically.

In that case, I'll just refer to Rainbolt's answer: you have to divide your question into questions based on the rules of Magic and questions about how to program it. Also, I would be interested in both looking at your code and discussing it in our chat room.

It sounds like the "is it a symbol" question is actually a programming one - you're thinking about how to represent all the attributes of a card in code, and noticing that some parts of the game (devotion) care about some of those attributes but not others.

@Jefromi Yeah, I think you're right, and it's questions like these that make me think only people who are both Magic players and Java programmers can help.  There are some issues I just don't think I break down enough for non-Magic players to help with.

@codebreaker People who are both would certainly be better at it, but I think if you work at it you'll be able to explain what you're trying to do to the programming crowd well enough to get useful advice - and the process of figuring out how to explain it may well lead you to the answers without ever having to post a question, analogous to rubber duck debugging.

@codebreaker I have experience in both Magic and programming (and writing Magic related programs), so I think I'd be able to help. If you join our chat room (which Rainbolt linked to), I'd be happy to discuss it.

Okay, cool, thanks, I'll try to release it in a few days, and I'll let you know.  I definitely agree on the rubber duck thing, I just think that, in object oriented design, modeling something in the most representative way possible often requires knowledge of both the programming language and the thing you're modeling.

@murgatroid99 Post updated with a link to my code (not sure if you get notified by the edit itself)

As I said before, I would suggest going into our chat room, which Rainbolt linked to, if you want to discuss it.

Would it be better to create a separate chat room, or just use the main one?

Either one would work. The main chat room is pretty quiet, so using it wouldn't be very disruptive

Where can I get casual help?
You can always join Board and Card Games chat or The Whiteboard (Programming chat) to casually discuss pretty much anything.
Where can I get help?
For more involved questions, we'll start off by stating the obvious:

Ask your programming questions on Programming.
Ask your Magic: the Gathering questions on Board & Card Games.

I have a combo question that deals with more than one topic. What do I do?
Break your combo questions into their respective parts. For example:

What data structure should I use to model the turn structure in Magic: the Gathering?

This question would be hard for a card game expert to answer, and it would be hard for a programming expert to answer. Break it down.

How does the turn structure work in Magic: the Gathering?

This is a perfect question for Board and Card Games SE. You'll get well-written answers from card game experts.

I need to model [insert lengthy, detailed description of the Magic turn structure]. What data structure should I use to model this?

This question is self-contained and on topic for Programming SE. You should get well written answers from programming experts.
You might save yourself a little time and effort by forcing your multi-topic question onto one site or another. If you get lucky, someone who is an expert on both topics will write you a beautiful answer. Regardless, your best bet is to ask focused questions that target focused audiences.


text:
What do you think about merging Chess.SE with this site?
I asked this question on Meta Chess.SE. It's basically a proposal to merge that site with this site. For the greater good of both sites, so they can pass beta stage.
I'd like to know what you think about that?

The chess site (and the poker site, and the go site, and the Magic proposal) were created because vocal proponents for those communities felt that those games were substantively different from other board and card games, and a specialised site for each would be much better. By allowing (most of) those sites to be created, Stack Exchange essentially decided to do the experiments to find out.
A frustrating side-effect of that decision is that although chess questions are on topic here, users tend to ask them on the chess site, because of a perception that they are somehow 'more' on-topic there. This actively hinders the growth of a community of chess experts on this site, since 'serious' players will prefer the other site.
The history of these decisions is summarised in Are we (as the Board and Card Game StackExchange) too broad in defining ourselves?.
Stack Exchange's rationale is explained in Why do chess and poker have separate sites even though they are clearly “board and card games?”.
My opinion is that these sites do not need to be distinct, and that distinction is not helping anyone. I believe both sites have smaller communities as a result of this balkanisation. We also suffer in terms of features and support. For example:
1) No chess board rendering. We have been told in Please implement the chess replayer on Board and Card Games that if we require nice chess board rendering, we would be best served by asking our questions on chess.SE, not here.
2) No support for displaying hands of cards. Despite a large card game following here, including bridge and poker, we do not have support for playing cards. This is standard on poker.SE (see e.g. Hand discussion: QJc vs A8o on A84 T K).
Finally, I suspect that the uncertainty surrounding the future of the other gaming sites, the consequent vague responses from SE, and the continued lack of support and feature commitment to B&CG is part of the reason that we continue to languish in endless Beta. Stack Exchange hasn't decided what to do here. For the forseeable future, the decision continues to be deferred. It's not clear to me how that can or will be resolved.

Yeah, this is really depressing to me every time it comes up. It's all well and good for subtopic sites to split off if they're clearly outgrowing their original home, but I feel that we need some official guidance from SE to stop them from preemptively splitting off. It doesn't do anyone any good to have tiny dead-end betas when they could be part of another site.

I have thoughts about the merge that I plan to share on behalf of Stack Exchange, but before I get around to that, I'd like to pointout that your statement about chess board rendering is inaccurate. The sole reason for the lack of support here is that it conflicts with the Go renderer - even if we merged the sites together, that conflict would still exist. Shog9 suggested asking on the Chess site as a venue if the question really benefited from the replayer, not trying to say that it's unimportant to get things fixed for this site.

@Grace Note - I respectfully disagree. A thought experiment: if a chess site didn't exist, would SE have increased the priority of implementing a renderer on this site? I'm afraid I also don't buy the "technical difficulty" line. I have some small facility with programming myself, and, like the problem of apostrophes in MTG names, this simply isn't very hard. At all. Especially not for someone of balpha's calibre. IMO, this looks like a question of priority, not difficulty.

@ires_and_curses I'm not going to say that it's top priority for us to fix this, but I will say that its priority is completely unrelated to the existence of the Chess site, and characterizing it as such is inaccurate. There's tons of what one might say are "quick fixes" - just today I had a rather swift thing on Japanese that took less than a minute to fix. We're not trying to spurn the community the attention it deserves, but things do not always get done with haste.

@Grace Note - Fair enough. I've edited my summary to reflect this exchange.

@ire_and_curses At least you get more response from SE devs than you do from Wizards about the legal-murky-waters regarding third-party card rendering. I've put in so many requests to get clarification on that I bet they just autoblock my IP now.

Sorry, to be clear, I was trying to generalize about the general issue of subtopic sites, not whether chess itself should exist - it's not a dead-end beta, but some subtopic sites I've seen were. What's really sad is when you see a couple dozen diehard fans of a topic pouring effort into a site that'll never work, when there's a site they could already join. Chess is bigger than that.

Since chess is already on-topic here, I doubt that many users of Board & Card Games would have a problem with that merge (I certainly don't). The ones most likely to oppose it would be the users of Chess.

yes i think so, since they voted down the user who agreed with me on that point


text:
Why were these questions merged?
This question asks, "What cards are pauper legal in paper but not MTGO?
This question asks, "What cards are pauper legal in MTGO but not paper?"
The former was merged with the second, with a comment that they are exact duplicates. They are not exact duplicates, by any reasonable definition of the word "exact". We'll use pictures.
What cards are in A but not B?

What cards are in B but not A?

Please unmerge these questions, or at least edit one of them so that it asks both questions.

Wow, they sure looked identical when I responded to a flag and merged them.  They still look really close!
There is no unmerge function, ask the second question again if it is needed.  Perhaps mentioning the other question and the relationship between them would be useful to prevent further mistakes.
My apologies.

Definitely agree with linking the questions - if you're posting two very closely-related questions, it's helpful to future readers anyway.


text:
Can we have AutoCard for the site chat?
Can the existing AutoCard  feature be made available for the Board and Card Games chat?
We discuss cards in that room all the time. Constantly opening new tabs to get links for the cards we are talking about is tedious. Honestly, I think the feature would get more use in the chat than it does on the main site.

+1 As a chat user I think that your claim it would get even more use is actually sound and reasonable. I hadn't considered that before.

Also, this should probably come with this trivial bugfix to our autocard feature. A previous version was declined, but it was declined on the basis that it was just how the search works - well, we were using the incorrect form of search, there's a different URL we should be using and that's all.

You can now use [mtg:Card Name] in Chat. I'll have a look at the other AutoCard requests to see if we can bring in some extra improvements.


text:
Why was my Too Chatty flag declined?
I flagged this comment as too chatty. The flag was declined with no reason provided.

I think the comment is too chatty. It makes no attempt to address the question. It appears to be a conversation between two users about the usefulness of Manifest in Limited and Constructed play. Another user even directed them towards a chat room.
Why was the flag declined?

I agree. Especially since the next comment suggests exactly that

This question may be helpful.

I suspect it's because it's not obvious without context that the comment is not relevant to the question. It is a known weakness of the flag system that moderators see flagged comments alone, without the question or surrounding comments for context. In the future, in situations like this, I would suggest using a custom flag on the comment or the question to indicate that the comment thread is too chatty.

When I go through the review queue and I need context, I get context. If our mods are so overloaded that they cannot do that, then we need more. We are perfectly capable of having a better community than that described by the meta answer you linked to. But that's a topic for another day.

The too chatty flag is generally used for clearly useless comments like "thanks" or "me too" that clearly add nothing to the question. You have here the non-standard situation of comments that appear to discuss the question but are actually slightly off topic. That kind of situation is exactly what custom flags were made for. Plus, flagging a single comment to remove a comment thread is unproductive: at best, just that comment will get deleted.

How does one get "comments that appear to discuss the question" without reading the question? That's like saying that my coworker appears to look like you, despite the fact that I have no clue what you look like.

@Rainbolt I wouldn't assume that the mods are making bad decisions because they're overloaded based on a single case. It could be an honest mistake. It's even a defensible decision; there's some wiggle room in what's too chatty and what isn't, based on the kind of discussion the community tends to tolerate, so someone could've even decided the discussion was ok. (Mods do tend to err on the side of not acting.) It could be something else. Without the mod who actually handled the flag explaining, hard to say.

That said, murgatroid's definitely right that custom flags are really, really helpful for things like this. In my experience, while I do always go look for context when I'm handling ambiguous flags, it's nice when the flag comes with an explanation of what someone already noticed, rather than making me figure it out myself.

@Jefromi I understand that custom flags are helpful. I have not refuted that point. It's in his answer, it's in his comment, and now it's in your comment too. Thanks. I get it.

@Rainbolt I was just trying to explain why it's a good idea, even if mods ideally should be looking at context and always making perfect decisions even without custom flags. My apologies if you and all future readers already understood that.

I took your advice and flagged the comment in question using a custom flag. I wrote, "Comment thread is too chatty (i.e., off topic, not discussing the question)." It's been sitting there for fourteen days now.

After nearly 45 days, the flag was accepted. Looks like this answer works after all.


text:
Can we agree on a standard format for MTG rules quotes?
Is there any chance that the community could come together on a standard format for rules quotes? Individuality is great, but so is consistency.

21.2a This is the relevant piece of the rule. [...]

I favor the format above, but even I have not demonstrated consistency in its use. Other variations include, but are by no means limited to

21.2a This is the relevant piece of the rule. [...]
21.2a This is the relevant piece of the rule. This is the irrelevant piece of the rule.
21.2a This is a rule with a bolded identifier.
This is a rule whose identifier is mentioned in a preceding sentence.
CR 21.2a This is a rule.

I do not think it is necessary to edit other posts to conform to a chosen style. I just think it would be nice to have a style guideline for posters that want to use it. Again, I want to stress that this meta post is not intended to force everyone to use a particular style. If authors want to deviate, let them.
This is specific to Magic: the Gathering, but if you have a generalized solution that extends beyond Magic, more power to you.

I think you should mention somewhere in your question that this is about Magic: the Gathering rules. It's obvious to me, since those are the questions I answer, but it may not be obvious to everyone.

You're still suggesting actively editing new posts, right? (Despite all the prolific users, a substantial fraction of answers are still from people likely not to have seen a meta post like this, especially once it's moved off the top spot.)

I simply asked because it wasn't completely clear whether you intended to leave those alone (so a substantial fraction of posts would have different formatting) or edit them (so a substantial fraction of posts would need editing). Either way it's a possible drawback, just wanted to know which you had in mind.

@Jefromi I retracted my previous comments because they were apparently confusing you. Anyone who can read English can clearly see that the question does not suggest actively editing posts. It merely asks for a style guideline. Anyone who wants to follow it can. I, in the comments, not the question, and in response to a question you asked, did suggest actively editing posts. I see now that you asked a leading question. "You're still suggesting [...]", that implies that I suggested it before. I didn't.

I like the idea, but it seems that an actual proposal for such a standard would not be well received...?

I think that this is a good idea in principle, but I would prefer not to follow a single formatting rule. I often find that I want to quote rules differently based on context and which rule I am quoting.
If I am quoting just a single rule (101.1), I often just quote the rule text and mention the identifier in the previous line. If I'm quoting a single rule with subrules (101.1, 101.1a, 101.1b), I'll put the rule numbers (bolded) in the quotation for consistency and make the subrules into a bulleted list. If I'm quoting multiple rules at the same level (101.1, 101.2, 101.3), I'll make them into a bulleted list because they are a list.
Sometimes, when I am quoting a long rule, I want to keep context, so I will quote the entire rule and bold the part relevant to my answer. Other times, I don't need the context so I will omit the unimportant parts of the rule.
I think that if we choose just one of those formats as a rule across the board, it will be subomtimal in some cases, and I think that in this case flexibility is more valuable than consistency.

I agree that we shouldn't try to follow a single formatting rule, and on top of this, I'm generally against trying to enforce style across many people's posts. There are better things to spend time on, sometimes it annoys authors, it bumps questions, sometimes the agreed-upon style is imperfect (or wrong), and even if you don't hit any issues, it's still not a big win.

@Jefromi The intent of the question was not to "enforce" a style. It was merely to suggest one to those that want to follow. That was made very clear in the question. See "I'd also like to stress that this meta post is not intended to force everyone to use the same style. If authors want to deviate, let them."

@Rainbolt You said in the comments when I asked that you intended to actively edit new posts, which is basically how you enforce style. Did I misunderstand? In any case, I have the same sentiment about trying to suggest a best style even without editing: it's unlikely to be always right and there are better things for people to worry about.

@Rainbolt I don't think you can really have it both ways: if you default to editing people's posts until they ask you not to, you're not really letting people deviate.

@Rainbolt I asked if you were suggesting actively editing new posts, and you said yes. It certainly sounded like you were suggesting that people in general should do that, not just that you personally would. But even if it's just you, it's relevant, because it makes it clear that answers which propose a style should also say not to edit others' posts to apply that style.

I think this is something that should be suggested, but not strictly enforced.  It can help people that need the guidance.
The right place to put it is on the Tag Wiki for magic-the-gathering.
Turns out it is already there, in much the format specified above.  The users of the tag are free to change it, if consensus can be reached.
The tag wiki hasn't seen a significant update in over two years, as this is our #1 tag, I'd appreciate it if the current users could eyeball it and ensure that everything is current and correct.

I'm going over it now, and I stumbled across "however you are encouraged to keep rule quotes as concise as possible as the rule text may be updated over time by Wizards of the Coast, but the section number is less likely to change." Can anyone back the bold part up? And by back it up, I mean back it up in the tag wiki. Responding to this comment won't help future tag wiki readers/editors.

I submitted an edit without touching the bit mentioned above, which may be more controversial. If it can't be backed up, it needs to be removed.

It's worth noting that the tag wiki doesn't really prescribe a format. It does suggest using block quotes (I think, it's a little confusing, the second example is a block quote of an answer, not a block quote as would be in an answer) but beyond that, the contents of the block quote are simply what's being quoted from the rules. So it's basically just saying "use block quotes for long quotes", which is a good idea regardless of what you're quoting.


text:
Question titles that consist only of card names
I keep seeing questions that contain only card titles. For example:

shapesharer and stoneforge mystic
Aegis of the Gods Vs. Erebos, God of the Dead
tabernacle of pendrell vale vs. pendrell mists

And then there are the questions that contain only card titles plus a little something about the specific interaction being asked about. For example:

Does Deserter's Quarters get overriden by Horizon Boughs?
How is Test of Faith resolved with multiple blockers?

In my opinion, all of these question titles are very poor, including the last two examples. What's wrong with the last two? Let me show you. Look at the question below, which has had far more hits than your typical Board and Card Games question, despite not being all that interesting (in my opinion).

Can non-creature permanents have +1/+1 counters?

Originally, the title was "Can lands have..." I later edited it to be "Can non-creature permanents have..." The point is, it never said "Can Mountains have..." or "Can Thassa, God of the Sea have..." or "Can Blinkmoth Nexus have..." Because of this, the community was able to quickly identify this question as a duplicate.
I think that the community needs to be more aggressive about editing the titles of questions that contain almost purely card names unless they are absolutely unable to be generalized.

I don't think your third example is necessarily a good one. The question is specifically asking about the differences between those two cards, and I think it matters that the cards have very similar names and texts. I'd be open to arguments to change it, but it's not really the same problem as all of the interaction questions.

@murgatroid99 The asked of that question should think, "What is it about these two particular cards that made me ask a question about them?" Consider "What is the difference between destroy and sacrifice?" or perhaps "Two cards are identical except for the words "destroy" and "sacrifice"". Are these not a huge improvement to the title? I would like to point out that the particular user, neubert, has a long history of poor question titles containing only card names. Look at it for yourself: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/users/6542/neubert?tab=questions

@murgatroid99 What if there were two other cards that were the same in every way except for the words destroy and sacrifice? Would we want to ask another question about them as well?

I agree with this plan in principle, but I think there are a few things we should be careful of.
First, we should make sure we are making titles better, or at least not worse, when generalizing. We can't end up with convoluted titles just to avoid using card names to refer to effects. For example, I think it's OK to change my question How does Kessig Cagebreakers interact with Gideon Jura? to have the title

If creatures enter the battlefield attacking, do they have to attack Gideon Jura?

but not the title

If creatures enter the battlefield attacking, and an ability has constrained what my creatures can attack, do the new creatures have to follow that constraint?

Because while the second title is more general, it's not enough to justify the increase in length and complexity.
Second, I think we should avoid over-generalizing. In other words, we should make sure to avoid editing the title to be more general than the actual question. For example, we wouldn't edit shapesharer and stoneforge mystic to say

Do copies of creatures trigger enter-the-battlefield abilities?

Because the question is specifically about turning a creature already on the battlefield into a copy, and that changes the answer.

Nice answer. The transformation should be simple and not lossy. If it is convoluted or loses information vital to the question, then it falls under the category of "unable to be generalized" mentioned in the question.

I would like to point out that "shapesharer and stoneforge mystic" could be even further improved to "Does becoming a copy of a creature trigger its enter the battlefield abilties?" Basically, I took your transformation and changed "Do copies ..." to "Does becoming a copy ..." and viola, we have improved the title. Whats even better is that we arrived at this better title together, and that is what crowd moderation is all about.

Oh, I know that most of these can probably be easily rewritten with good general titles; I just needed an example of a title rewritten incorrectly. And actually, I think your title could be further improved to "Does a creature becoming a copy of another creature trigger any enters the battlefield abilities?"

I think this is being taken a little far sometimes, forgetting about the things you said to be careful of. I'd also list respecting the OP's intent as a requirement; transforming their question can be disrespectful. I've even seen claims that too specific questions are off topic, which really pressures the OP to let their question be generalized, even if it's lossy.

Preserving the meaning of the original question is already part of the Help Center's editing guidelines. I don't think it needs to be restated here along with the specific issues with these kinds of edits. And remember that once someone posts a question here, it belongs to the site, and we should improve it if possible.

@murgatroid99 These kinds of edits are more likely than most to substantially change the intent of the question, and I have seen it happen, so whether or not it's in the Help Center, people clearly need a reminder.

@Jefromi and murg: I noticed today that questions with card titles get substantially more views than questions without. Check out the ages and view counts on this question and this question. I wanted to throw that out there, since it's an argument for not generalizing titles at all.

50% more with a sample size of 2 is not statistically significant. Granted, the difference in time scales makes it somewhat significant, but there could be any number of reasons for that difference. If you can provide more data that demonstrates a general trend, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

@Rainbolt It's definitely true that people search for things by card name and not by general question title (indeed, as you've seen, even when they come here and ask the question they often don't have the vocabulary to ask the general question). I've always been in favor of preserving the OP's intent as much as possible, so I'm totally fine with leaving card names in the title, and (if necessary) adding a few general terms into the question to make sure it allows generic answers and help us find it later as a duplicate target. The title shouldn't be only card names, but it can have names.

@murgtroid99 I thought about that earlier, and I think it's actually impossible to generate a statistically significant sample that isn't biased by whomever handpicked it, unless they have a database of card names to query against. I could absolutely find one more sample, but I'm almost guaranteed to find one that suits me. Oh well :-/

@Jefromi You're beating a dead horse. Nobody is advocating the destruction of the OP's intent. Nobody is declaring that card titles are absolutely bad in all cases.

@Rainbolt It's a reply to the comment you directed at me, explaining why I agree that it's generally fine to leave card names in and avoid generalization when it requires substantial changes. If you want to discuss it further, fine, but let's be a little more constructive about it.

@Rainbolt you could always look at the latest N questions. That's a sample that's unlikely to be biased if you choose N first. You'd probably also want to consider views per day and revision history.

@murgtroid99 I will do this on Monday if there is interest. If I could show (significantly) that questions with cards in the title got ten times as many views as those without, would it affect your decision to rename things? That's really why I came here and necro'd this. If I do, I think I'll start a few pages under to make sure I don't grab anything that was recently renamed or being otherwise heavily edited.

@Jefromi No, I actually don't want to rehash the points that were brought up two months ago. Thank you for the offer.

@Rainbolt Findability isn't the only reason for generalizing titles, but it is a major one, so it would be valuable to know what kind of titles make questions easier to find.

@Rainbolt I was trying to discuss exactly what you brought up today, and no less, agree with you. Here's what I said: leaving card names in the titles is good because it makes other people more likely to find them (as you suggested), and also because it likely stays closer to the OP's intent. Making questions general (to be good duplicate targets, and invite general answer) can be done in the body of the question. None of this is beating a dead horse, or rehashing at all.

I do a lot of editing. I edit a lot of MTG questions. I value titles (they're what people see when browsing or using Google), and I edit a lot of questions primarily to give them a better title.

I think that the community needs to be more aggressive about editing the titles of questions that contain almost purely card names unless they are absolutely unable to be generalized.

I do not think we need to do this. I do not think it is a good idea, or that "unless they are absolutely unable to be generalised" is a good rule of thumb. I'll explain.
Should we edit question titles that just mention two card names? Certainly!
When a question title consists of merely "Card vs Card" or "Card and Card" or so on, I'll edit the title to try to capture the interaction between those cards so as to communicate what the heck is going on.
I don't think it'll be contested that either of these retitles is better, because the "vs" says almost nothing about the situation:

Aegis of the Gods Vs. Erebos, God of the Dead → Will Aegis of the Gods negate my opponent's Erebos, God of the Dead for me?
tabernacle of pendrell vale vs. pendrell mists → Why are Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale and Pendrell Mists worded differently?

So yeah, if the question is just card titles, it's probably gonna be a good candidate for retitling.
Should we generalise away the names enthusiastically? No.
So, here's the thing. Magic has a lot of cards, and a limited quantity of mechanics. Each new card combines those mechanics in new and different ways. Two cards using the same five mechanical concepts could put them in a different order and adjust the numbers and wind up not resembling each other at all. On top of that, the combination of any two remarkable cards is often incredibly unique.
We do end up revisiting the same mechanics over and over in Magic the Gathering answers, but that's because they keep getting re-used. That doesn't mean one answer explaining those five mechanics can necessarily answer a question about the other card.
For an example, consider the common mechanic of creatures with a P/T of */*, where that's defined by cards in graveyards. How many cards do that? Not many more than 20, and most of them are subtly different to the rest in some way that's going to be critical to a question. And look! Nighthowler isn't even in that search, because it's subtly different in yet another way.
So, even if I replace a card name in a title with a description of that relevant mechanic, usually the question will still be uniquely about just one card. If a new question arrives about a card with similar mechanics, it often won't be a full duplicate of the previous one, even if we might go into detail on the same mechanics again. Generalising the title doesn't necessarily make it a good dupe candidate, in other words.
Generalising is often gainless
I could ask a question titled What about {thing} when I have Etherium Sculptor out?, or I could title it more generally with What about {thing} when I have a creature out that makes artifacts cost 1 less?, except there's very few cards like that and Etherium Sculptor is one of them. We're not likely to get duplicates on this.
Likewise, we could rename Does Progenitor Mimic create copies of itself even when it isn't a creature? to be more general. But what general title could we have? Something like: Can a creature which clones a creature then keeps creating copies of itself and refers to itself as a 'creature' in the description keep copying itself when it isn't a creature? That's sure more general, but there's still only one card this would even relate to.
As a recent concrete example, What happens when a creature with "Whenever a creature dies" dies simultaneously with multiple other creatures? was recently retitled from Does Marchesa, the Black Rose protect herself as well as others from board wipes that would kill her too?. Sure, we're revisiting the same mechanic again, and we're going to revisit them again another time, but this isn't actually likely to be a duplicate target because of the specific situation being asked about.
Let's just generalise where the generalisation is absolutely helpful.
So, this is overdoing it:

I think that the community needs to be more aggressive about editing the titles of questions that contain almost purely card names unless they are absolutely unable to be generalized.

But this might be more helpful:

... if the situation and mechanic are extremely general and can be safely very generalised.

Like here! We did that: When does Heroic trigger?
And here! I asked about the entire concept, rather than just Nemesis of Mortals: How does mana cost reduction interact with colored mana in a cost?
But let's not generalise just because we can. That doesn't make the site better.

Strongly agree. I've seen an attitude of "generalize if at all possible" which is really concerning; it's not always an improvement and it's disrespectful to the OP.

But if the change is an improvement, then any "disrespect" to the OP is kind of irrelevant because it's making the site better. So what we really need to figure out is how to make sure these changes are actually improvements. I think my answer hits part of it, with making sure that we get the right degree of generality and clarity in the titles, and I think this answer hits the part about not "generalizing" unless the new question applies to significantly more cards/interactions while retaining the original meaning.


text:
Question About Games in General
Which of the following is true?

General questions about games are Off Topic.
General questions about games are On Topic.
General questions about games are On Topic if they meet Some Condition.

I was told that my question, What's the name of the theory that the player with the most options has the advantage?, was off topic because it was not about a specific board or card game.

[Your question] should be closed because it's not about specific board or card games and is therefore not on-topic on this site.
In any case, the on-topic help page says "For a question to be on topic, it must relate to a game that is on topic."

Questions about kingmaking, analysis paralysis, and other concepts that are not specific to a single game have all been treated with high regard on this site. This question about house rules even declares that it is not about a specific game. Why does mine have to be about a specific game?
I think the reason that my question is being treated unfairly is that there is a deeper issue that is bugging voters, and they are looking for a made up reason to close vote. I'll enumerate the reasons that I think could be bugging the voters:

"Your question doesn't specifically apply to board games."

The same could be said of almost every question on the site. Kingmaking was born from war, money, and politics. Analysis paralysis has its roots in software development workplaces. My question is apparently born from trivial set theory, according to another user.

"Your question is trivial."

The theory is trivial. I am looking for the name of that theory. There's a difference.

General questions about games should be on-topic — as long as it's a question appropriate for board or card game enthusiasts.
In terms of the comments you've received, I believe the following:

Your question is about something relevant to board and card games.
The question doesn't apply specifically to board games, but neither do some very good questions we've had. I can pick out a couple from a non-game specific tag like dice fairly easily, which also apply to roleplaying games like Dungeons & Dragons (which definitely isn't an on-topic game):

Is there a standard way to number the faces of a 20-sided die?
Why do the opposing sides of a D20 generally add up to 21

Your question isn't trivial. Even if it is, that's not a reason for closure. It would suggest, maybe, you haven't done your research, but I imagine you have.

But it's hard to draw a rule of thumb on general questions.
I propose a guideline
There's a guideline we can use to determine whether general questions not directly related to a board or card game are appropriate for our site or not. A version of it has been used on Game Development and Role-playing Games for years, and it's produced great results.
It'd be something like this for us:

Questions about a general topic, such as terminology, might more likely belong on another Stack Exchange site (e.g. English) than here. A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself …

Would a board or card game expert give me a better/different/more specific answer to this question than a Linguist, Video game developer, etc?

If yes, then feel free to ask it here.

For Game Development, where this guideline first originated, the major problem was non-game related programming questions, so their FAQ specifically mentions it in that context. They now can recognise when a question isn't suitable for their site in that area and others (art, animation, mathematics, etc).
For RPG.SE, our problem was real world topics - people developing a campaign would ask historical or geographical questions, or how fast certain boats were in real life. It was hard to tell what to do with those questions, since while many were totally appropriate, others weren't, and it was hard to know where to draw the line. It was a real problem for us and it took a couple of years before we found and adopted that guideline (heck, the meta question I linked was 'part two' - part one was two years prior). RPG players usually aren't the right people to ask about that stuff. Our FAQ calls those out explicitly, and it's worked really well and finally made it clear which ones we should keep or close.
For us, here on Board Games, the current issue is just a terminology question. There might be other stuff more appropriately mentioned here. I'm not sure if this has come up a lot for us.
So by this rule of thumb, is your terminology question on topic?
Yes. Whether you ask it on here, or on English as a term identification question, a basic answer will just be the name of the strategy (if it has a name). However, you'll get a more specific response on Board Games: someone spirited enough to do so may elaborate on why this isn't always advantageous in games, or may sometimes leave you worse off, or so on, elaborating on certain situations offered by certain games.
So whilst it's kinda borderline, it's borderline on the side of yes, it's fine here.

To (rather belatedly) flesh out a comment Jefromi made: While I don't think it's a primary consideration, one relevant consideration to appropriateness that may have been being applied here (consciously or not) is the question of whether this is the most appropriate site for a given question.  In the case of the terminology question you posed, I don't think that B&CG is inappropriate for it, but I feel that the Mathematics StackExchange site would be a better fit for it, since the 'core content' of the question is primarily mathematical (you're looking for a formal term).

Games in General
I do agree that requiring a question to be about one specific on-topic game is unnecessarily narrow. However, questions on this site should at the very least be specific to board games and/or card games. The help center's on topic page defines the site like this:

Board and Card Games Stack Exchange is for expert Q&A from people who like playing, discussing the strategy of, and getting rules clarifications of board games, designing board games or modifying the rules of existing board games.

Considering your examples in that light:

Kingmaking is not a concept that is specific to board or card games. However, that particular question was asking about the strategy of kingmaking in board/card games and about designing and modifying the rules of existing board games to take those kinds of strategies into account.
Analysis paralysis, again, is not a concept specific to this subject matter. But, again, that particular question was about playing board games with people who act that way.
The "taking back actions" question, finally, was also about modifying the rules of existing board/card games (that's what "house rules" means, after all) to allow people to reverse actions, and whether that was desirable.

Your Specific Question
First, your question is not just not about a specific board or card game. It's also not about playing board or card games in general. It's about games in general, and only then because the wording of the question uses the word "player." It's not even asking for any knowledge related to playing games. Your question, in essence, is asking

Is there a [formal or mathematical] term for the idea that "it's always better to keep your options open"?

That doesn't fit with any of the categories specified in the help center. The information you are looking for isn't really about games, in particular or in general; it's about terminology. If anything, the question might fit on English Language and Usage.

In response to your first paragraph only: Kingmaking also has no specific relevance to board or card games. It was born of royal politics. I could easily take the question about analysis paralysis and instead of talking about Settlers of Catan, I could talk about productivity at my workplace. Why is my question treated unfairly?

In response to your last half: I could easily generate hundreds of examples of where this theory applies to actual board or card games, the same way that "paralysis analysis" can be applied to Settlers of Catan. If I do that, you'll still just retort with "I could remove all this extra information and reduce it to a set theorem." If you can remove stuff from my question, why can't you remove stuff from the paralysis analysis question? I hope that you will consider the other three questions I linked to in your analysis.

I added a general answer that I think addresses some of your concerns. I think the most important point is that even if we accept that your question is about games (which I personally disagree with), it's still not specifically about board or card games.

Again, Kingmaking is not specifically about board or card games either. Neither is paralysis analysis. The examples included in the question were incidental. If I include a specific example of a board or card game in my own question, are you saying that you will actually take it into consideration?

Kingmaking and analysis paralysis are not about board games, but they will get treated differently in the context of board and card games than in other contexts, so they are still of specific interest to this site. And as I said at least 4 times in my answer, the difference between all of those questions and yours is that the other questions are about playing games and yours is not.

The theory in my question should also be treated differently in the context of board and card games (but isn't that completely subjective anyway?). As I've said three times now (since we're keeping count), avoiding a kingmaking scenario has nothing specifically to do with board or card games. Although you have stated it four times now, you have not explained why kingmaking is somehow "more related" to board and card games than my question is.

All three items in your new bulleted breakdown are just wrong. The kingmaking example references on topic games, but would still be the same question without those examples. You copped out on the other two by claiming they existed on day 1. Are they off topic now? If not, can you trim your answer to only include relevant arguments so that I don't have to spend all day parsing what is and is not relevant? As soon as I present one argument, you take another path. It's bothering me that you can't seem to find one single definitive reason for my question's off-topicness and stick with it.

I rewrote my answer to try to communicate my thoughts on the matter better. Before you ask, I removed the references to "mathematical theorems" because I think they muddied the real issue. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was "moving the goalposts"; I was really just having trouble articulating what made me think the question didn't belong. I think I've got it now, though.

Isn't "specific to board/card games" way too high a standard? Maybe more something more like "primarily about board/card games" or even "enough about board/card games that you'll get as good an answer in that context as in any other" (sorry, not as concise)? It doesn't do anyone any good if general questions can't be asked anywhere because they're not specific to any one site.

I think you're treating the word "specific" as being more demanding than I was. I think my treatment of the chosen examples shows what I mean in that regard. I just don't want to see "Is it appropriate to play board games with coworkers?" (might belong on Workplace) or "How do I write a program to do a chess knight's walk?" (might belong on SO) or "How do I calculate the number of game states in Go?" (might belong on Math) where the actual information the question is looking for doesn't really have anything to do with board games.

@murgatroid99 Hm, well, I understand what you mean but I'm not sure specific is the best way to say it. The guideline in Jonathan's answer ("will it get a better answer in the context of board/card games") is actually not that different from what you're ultimately saying.