Talk:Dominion (card game)

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Introduction

"It was the first game of its kind and inspired a genre of games building on its central mechanic." I'm not sure what the original author means by this game being the first of its kind. I would characterize it as a deck-building game, and I can think of other games that existed before Dominion: Magic the Gathering as an example off the top of my head. Anyone have insight into what that original author is implying here so we can make it clearer for the reader? User:pickalittletalkalittle — Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a deck-building game like Dominion, players start with small, weak, identical decks, and modify them during the game, as opposed to CCGs, where they construct the deck before the game. There are other differences but this is the key one. Does this clarify the distinction?

CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text is good and clear -- with the link to article deck-building game and the references.

...

"it was the first deck-building game, and inspired a genre of games building on its central mechanic."

... JohnRussell (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

Is there some reason why this page is named "Dominion (board game)" when it's a card game? This should just be moved to "Dominion (game)". I was about to do it, but thought maybe I should say something on the talk page first. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC) No, my mistake - I used a template from another board game and forgot to change it to card game. Go ahead and change. Hakko504 (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, page moved as per discussed here... --Craw-daddy | T | 15:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be "Dominion (card game)" to distinguish it from the completely unrelated web game of the same name. --98.203.232.151 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

The article confuses Kingdom cards and action cards. Gardens is a Kingdom card, but not an action card (and there are more examples in the expansions).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct it then. This is wikipedia.--Nickpheas (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying

Because the Gardens aren't used in the game unless chosen as one of the 10 Kingdom cards, I removed them from the Victory card description (especially seeing as the expansions introduce other cards that function as Victory cards, Treasure cards and combinations of those and Action cards. 223ankher (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Play online

On http://www.brettspielwelt.de/?action=play&loginroom=schnellStart&logingame=100 u can play dominion online for free. (Its Germany, but u can switch) I dident know howe Wiki works, so can some one else post this under weblinks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.185.146 (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you can play with all the cards on dominion.isotropic.org, unofficially but with Donald's blessing (and playtesting images!). However, probably neither one should be linked from the article, isotropic because it's unofficial, and Brettspielwelt because it's hideously ugly and user-unfriendly :P Personman (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start class?

I just expanded the gameplay section a bit, but even before I did that this seemed like more than a stub. I took a look at the ratings guidelines, but I'm still not clear enough on them to be sure what rating this article now deserves. I bumped it up to Start-class, which seems most likely and safest. Personman (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by JDspeeder1

JDspeeder1 just did a pretty big edit, adding a lot of text. Seems to be way too much information if you ask me. But I just corrected one thing that was wrong, that reaction cards are a subtype of action cards. In theory a card can be a reaction without being an action (although all reactions to date are also actions). The manually also states this, saying that reaction cards are "usually" also action cards. The big difference is that you don't trigger the reaction by playing the card, as you would an action. The action ability and the reaction ability of the card is completely separate and have nothing to do with each other. (There really are no "subtypes" in Dominion, duration and attack are just two other types. But it seems reasonable in a short article to describe them as subtypes of actions, since they're always connected to playing the card as an action.) 193.91.181.142 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC) (Nick)[reply]

Right. In fact the Hinterlands expansion has some "Treasure/Reaction" and "Victory/Reaction" cards. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit mentioned previously was not by JDspeeder, but no matter. The article has grown even more since then, and several things were inaccurate or wrong also. I just cleaned it up (mainly Game Play). As an example, it's pointless to mention specific cards like Estate and Copper (in players' starting hands) when the article nowhere explains what these are. And the article should in fact not explain what they are, or what any specific cards do. This kind of thinking is what makes so many WP articles useless, as they are bloated with minutia that are irrelevant for someone trying to learn about the basics of the subject without having a lot of prior knowledge. 80.202.76.148 (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC) (Nick)[reply]

External Links

Only two of the external links meet WP:EL: that to the game's official site and that to BoardGameGeek--and the second stretches the boundaries, but makes sense due to inclusion of similar links in almost all Eurogame articles on WP. I've removed the other external links (including that of a forum of which I'm a member); they shouldn't be edited back in unless another editor can give very good reasons otherwise. ES2 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to Cards Section

I'd really like to begin adding some text to the currently empty Cards section, but I don't really know where to start or how to format it. I was taking a look at some articles about Magic to get some ideas, and I like the section about Notable Cards. For now, I think it would be a good idea to list 3-4 notable cards for each set, and think about expanding the section into multiple articles at a later date. Thoughts? Jeremey Bentham (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion doesn't have the same breadth of coverage that MtG has; it is very difficult to highlight any specific card from secondary sources. So this really wouldn't be appropriate at all. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dominion (card game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Correction to Article

Added a minor correction to the article, as there are a few victory cards from at least a couple of Dominion expansions that are (usually) beneficial to Dominion players during the game (cards such as Nobles, Tunnel, etc.)

Selmak12 (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Selmak12: I think it would be better to add that some cards have multiple types - cards such as Tunnel and Nobles are not useful because they are victory cards, but because they have an additional type. I'd still leave in your "usually" though, because of Baron, Vault and other cards that can use victory cards directly. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John of Reading: That's a fair point. Selmak12 (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Combinations

For 10 out of 334 there are 4155527303699200000 combinations. But with Young Witch comes 11th pile (from 97 eligible). Furthermore there is the possibility to play with Colony + Platinum, the possibility to replace starting Estates with Shelters, and to play with up to 2 (keeping it in recommended limits) of Events, Landmarks, and Projects. The overall number of unique combinations is then 179879666789526000000000 ~ 180E+21 resulting from 2 * 2 * (1 + 75 + binomialCoefficient(75 , 2)) * ( 97 * binomialCoefficient(332 , 9) + binomialCoefficient(333 , 10) ). Anonymous editing as 188.107.169.168 (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Card Types

I have re-added the changes that Masem reverted. This was because their reasoning behind the reversion was wrong on several counts:

1. They stated that the card types I added were all from expansions. This is factually untrue; eg Moat and Witch.

2. They stated that the card types “were not core to rules”. There is no core rules section in the article; I edited the Gameplay section. This is full of references to things that occur in expansions only, such as tokens or extra kingdom piles. Moreover, the game does not differentiate between “core” and “advanced” rules.

3. The previous revision was at best misleading in stating that all cards are one of four types, and that other types are distinct from these. I also cleaned up a few other errors.

If another editor wishes to change this, please do so by adding “core” and “expansion” sections. However, this doesn’t seem like a good idea to me; as over 90% of the gameplay is in the expansions, it seems wiser to integrate the two. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having played dominion for nerly ten years myself I tend to agree with this point of view Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we are careful not to get so far into specific details without sourcing to back it up. A recent AFD for MTG's rules Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering rules (4th nomination) (which is far far longer and has worse problems) points out that we don't need to get to certain levels of details, and WP does fine with generalities particularly if this is not readily covered by 3rd party sources (which I have looked for Dominion but there is not much out there). --Masem (t) 04:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking my criticism of your actions on the chin. I wholly agree that there's no need to go into too much detail here, but I feel a few examples help. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem, I’ve reverted your edits.

Maybe separating base and expansion rules is the more useful way to organise the article. How about I split the Gameplay section in two: “premise” explaining card types and basic/kingdom cards, and “gameplay” about actual play of the base set only, then adding an Expansions section which will detail the changes they make, with a note in Gameplay to look at Expansions for more detail. Do you think this makes sense? Would it be clearer for a reader who doesn’t know anything about the game? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you undo your last edit. Page 6 of the Dominion 2nd Edition rulebook, in the section on Card Types, states "These are the card types present in the main set (expansions add some)" and then lists Action, Treasure, Victory, Curse, Attack, and Reaction, in that order. It does not state that "there are four basic card types, Kingdom, Victory, Curse, and Treasure". Moreover, the expansion with Night cards is called Nocturne, not Nocturnal: https://www.riograndegames.com/games/dominion-nocturne/

I made a suggestion for continuing to improve the article in my last reply; what do you think? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: the expansions are much more integral to the game than (say) Munchkin or some other boardgames. I and most people I know have most if not all of them. Agree we need to find some sources backing this up and I'll get onto hunting for them soon. I have not worked on many gaming articles on wikipedia as yet so will be finding my way with sourcing etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made some changes to the “Gameplay” section. To justify some of them:

1. There’s no necessary difference in setup or basic gameplay between expansions, and the concept of card types is the same in all expansions; calling the rules section “basic set” was misleading.

2. Kingdom cards are not a card type (see the Card types section on page 6 of the main rulebook, or Courtier in the Intrigue rules). I added information on Base and Kingdom cards to explain this.

3. Kingdom cards usually don’t have an effect after you buy them, but after you play them (buying is not even necessary…)

4. As mixing and matching is simple and fundamental to the game, it made sense to put this information in the setup section.

5. There is no such thing as a “keyword type” or a “new Curse card”.

6. There is no “Nocturnal” expansion, it’s Nocturne.

7. Non-supply cards are not landscapes. They are cards that players can add to their decks without buying them; landscapes cannot be added to decks, and some cannot be bought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CohenTheBohemian (talk • contribs) 14:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Donald X. Vaccarino" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Donald X. Vaccarino and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 28#Donald X. Vaccarino until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"First" vs "First Popular" Deck Builder

Jumping ahead of this to avoid an edit war. Looking at Hydro033 and CohenTheBohemian edits I have to say I'm a bit confused. The TechRaptor article says As the first major hit to feature the “deck building” mechanic.... This indicates to me that using the verbiage "popular" is appropriate. Is there a citation that Dominion was the first? Failing that, to assume that it is the first would be bordering on WP:OR. - Skipple ☎ 21:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a secondary source that covers the history of the deckbuilding mechanic in full. So I think we need to be more precise in the claim, and not make either claim in wikivoice, eg:

"It is considered the first deck building game"(with inline citations to both NYT and Ars Technica)

NYT calls Dominion the "progenitor of a game mechanic called deck-building"[1].
Ars Technica says "it introduced a hugely influential new mechanic to tabletop games."[2].
The Verge is less committal saying it "made building a deck ... a major focus of gameplay."[3]. However it does not contradict the phrasing I've used above.
The source you've provided is more non-committal, still not contradicting the phrasing I've used above.

Claiming it is the first in wikivoice would be OR based on what we have. Claiming it as the "first popular" in wikivoice is probably UNDUE when others do consider it the first deck building game. Lastly, the lead also should not dwell on whether it was the first deckbuilding game, or whether it was the first popular game to feature the mechanic. If we have enough secondary sources to have a deeper discussion later in the article that may be ok.

To go on a bit of a tangent:

The actual history is certainly complicated, and without a secondary source we probably can't include it. Dominion was possibly the first game to feature the mechanic at all according to designer's recollection (obvious primary source)[4] but wasn't published until after StarCraft. BoardGameGeek (UGC/wiki) suggests StarCraft was a precursor, but not the first deckbuilding game.[5]. BoardGameGeek forum user claims StarCraft as the first [6], (but in that post I see also see zero basis for the claim that Starcraft invented it other than publication dates.). Again, we'd need a proper secondary source to really have something to say.

We can't use the UGC/wiki/forum at all, and we would only be able to use the designer's recollection alongside a proper secondary source covering the history, which we do not have. —siro χ o 23:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be best to say that Dominion is considered as the game that was considered to have established the deck building game genre. That doesn't commit it to being the first one, but in line with the sources, the one everyone drew from that followed. Masem (t) 23:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the second half of the current sentence in question, worthy of discussion but not the part that was yet in question. The first half is a question of whether it was first. The second half is about inspiring/establishing a genre. I don't have a strong preference for the second half right now but "established" might be more fair paraphrase than "inspired".

I do think both parts of the sentence are important to the lead. In full maybe:

"It is considered the first deck building game,^[1]^[2] and established the genre of games based on the mechanic".^[3]

^ NYT
^ ArsTechnica
^ TechRadar

There's potentially other sources to consider as well but they seem less reliable and don't contradict anything above, so may not be needed [7][8] —siro χ o 01:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skipple, thank you for bringing this to the talk page.

I reverted @Hydro033's edit because, going by their edit summary, they were claiming that Starcraft was the first deckbuilder - the change from "first" to "first popular" is to imply that there were previous games. This went against both the description of Starcraft on its page (where the deckbuilding looks quite minor) and my memory of the sources in the article. Asking for a reliable source is in line with WP:BURDEN.

Given the sources, I don't think it's OR to claim it's the first deckbuilder. The NYT and Ars Technica articles @Siroxo found clearly claim this, as do

Techraptor [9] says "And the games that came after and used this core mechanic [...] have done a wonderful job of taking the central gameplay and adding a more action-oriented theme (or flashy licensed IP) onto it to make it feel fresh. But Dominion was here first"
Wired [10] says "If you're familiar with any other deck-building games [...] you'll have a basic idea of whether or not you like the genre, and Dominion is an outstanding implementation (not to mention the origination) of it."

Another article on the page implies it:

Escapist [11] calls it "highly original" and has several paragraphs discussing predecessors and development.

There's also an argument from silence: if there were earlier deckbuilders, why don't multiple reliable sources compare Dominion to them? They talk about Magic and later games, but none earlier.

However, if we want to use "It is considered the first deck building game and established the genre." (tweaking Siroxo's suggestion for brevity) I'd be OK with that, too.

Also, the lead needs editing to move the sources out down the page per MOS:LEADCITE, but that can wait till this is sorted. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a bit concerned that we can say, 100% as absolute fact, that Dominion is the first deck-builder. It absolutely is the fundamental game that established the genre (that is in all the sources) and thus by implication has to be one of the first such deck-builders, but I don't read from the sources we have that we absolutely be certain no previously published game would later also be known as a deck builder after the fact. Masem (t) 12:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The closest RS that claims a "first" would be Wired article, which is fairly unambiguous in it's claim of origination. The NYT article describes the game as a "progenitor of a game mechanic" but that Times article is part of their Wirecutter (*cough* advertisement *cough*) section and isn't something I would personally consider a reliable source. It depends of we consider the Wired's article's claim enough to make the statement on Wikipedia. - Skipple ☎ 12:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even discounting the NYT piece, Ars Technica explicitly says it invented deckbuilding, and there's no other way to read the Techraptor piece. I don't see why the assertion of three reliable sources is being weighed against a YouTube video and BGG forum posts.

Masem is asking us to a) prove a negative and b) anticipate the future (it's possible that tomorrow an RS will publish a claim that Starcraft was the first deckbuilder, but WP:CRYSTALBALL). CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly concerned with proving anything with Starcraft, nor am I requesting that we prove a negative, but rather cite RSes that say Dominion is the first game to implement deck building. I don't agree with your interpretation of Techraptor, only that Dominion was first before Ascension and Legendary. However, when rereading the Ars Technica piece, I think I tend to agree with you. Between the Wired and Ars Technica articles, I believe there's enough here to make the statement that Dominion was first with some level of confidence. You have convinced me. - Skipple ☎ 15:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have no idea how to use wiki or participate in these things properly, so sorry about that. However, I think citing popular media outlets as definitive authorities on this topic over factual publication date is dubious. The sheer popularity of Dominion over Starcraft alone is enough that a media outlets would overlook a minor niche game like Starcraft. The fact remains that Starcraft does feature deck building and it was published a year prior and featured deck building. Many in the board game community recognize it's importance in this respect [12] [13] [14]. Starcraft is clearly categorized in the Deck, Bag, and Pool Building on boardgamegeek.com as well. It's even listed on the deck-building game wikipedia page as the oldest title Deck-building game. I'd also argue the Starcraft wiki page is far from complete. Doesn't even have graphic StarCraft: The Board Game, but it was a niche title, so not surprised. No doubt that Dominion basically made the genre what it is today, but credit where credit is due because it a novel mechanic at the time, whether it was the entire game or not. Hydro033 (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, going by release dates to make claims falls under WP:OR (original research), which we can't do. Similarly sites with user-generated content like BGG are not considered WP:RS (reliable sources), so characterize the Starcraft game as a deck builder that way doesn't work.

I am all for being clear that Dominion may not be the first deck builder, since the sources don't support Dominion being the first. But we can't really talk about Starcraft predating it without reliable sources that mention it. Masem (t) 14:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well unfortunately I just don't think Starcraft the Board game was ever popular enough to remembered, so unless a journalist publishes a real deep dive on the topic, then looks like we're stuck. Unfortunate because I think all the evidence is there if one were to evaluate the game and simply write an article. Hydro033 (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, @Hydro033. The gap between what is likely true and what is verifiable is wider than it seems at first blush, and much slipperier. Most of the time I spend editing Wikipedia is trying to work out if something is even notable; once you're over that hurdle, it's a breeze. Hopefully one day some journalist does write that article! CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome (back?) to Wikipedia, @Hydro033. I want to explain an interesting related phenomenon that may help with the understanding here: "Genre warring". Basically, it's understood that classifications like genre are very much a matter of opinion. What seems clear to us as individuals may not reflect a broader understanding. So what we do is we provide a neutral point of view, and we do that by summarizing verifiable information from reliable sources. We count on reliable sources to have synthesized some of that opinion into a broader understanding through various forms of academic, journalistic, etc practices. Then we try to give those reliable sources DUE weight.

To bring it back to the discussion at hand, right now we don't have any reliable sources that contradict Dominion being the first deck building game, and we do have some that claim it was the first. —siro χ o 17:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm glad we could reach consensus here.

I apologise for muddying the discussion by replying to two people in the same comment. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the statement that Donald X denies Magic being being "the inspiration"

The statement which I removed is not an accurate summary of what Donald X said in the linked interview, and (as I said in my edit summary), is simply absurd given that Donald X enjoys Magic, and it was one of the major reasons he got into game design in the first place. There are many similarities between MtG and Dominion (and yes, plenty of differences), and there is little room to doubt that those similarities are largely attributable to the impact of Magic.

The relevant statement in the cited interview is that the Deck-building aspect specifically of Dominion was not inspired by Magic, which is exactly what the first half of my added sentence stated. (As an aside, the actual source of that mechanic was a different prototype Donald X was working on, which simulated a character becoming stronger RPG-style by adding stronger cards to the player's deck).

The second half of my sentence is also an appropriate summary of the relevant statement in the interview ( https://web.archive.org/web/20120308034902/http://meepletown.com/2012/02/game-designer-interview-donald-x-vaccarino-again/ ):

"Dominion‘s deckbuilding was not actually inspired by Magic, but Magic inspired me to pursue game design at all, and introduced me to interacting rules on cards, and drafting."

Dominion features both interacting rules, and drafting, so he is clearly stating here that some mechanics of Dominion were indeed inspired by Magic. (And there are other similarities whose presence in Dominion should be considered to have their origin in Magic, in the absence of reasons to believe otherwise).

I will proceed to revert back to my version of the statement. If you still object, I ask that until we reach a resolution, that statement should be removed completely for the time being, rather than actively restoring an absurd falsehood. - Ramzuiv (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your overall point, I think, but Dominion doesn't involve drafting. AJD (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment AJD. Maybe it doesn't involve drafting in a strict sense, but the central mechanic is very similar to drafting (there's a pool of a finite number of cards, and players take turns adding those cards to their decks).

To anticipate just in case anybody might ask whether Dominion has interacting cards: Reading through Donald X's writings (such as card previews and the "Secret History of..." series on the Dominion Strategy Forum), he talks a lot about interactions between cards. And as one example (from one of the expansions), there are the castle cards, two of which score points based on how many castles a player has (and another based on how many victory cards), another which trashes other castles, and another which gives a bonus when it is trashed, so that is at least one mechanic in Dominion that Donald X Vaccarino is on record (in the very same interview and sentence that is cited in support of the supposed denial of influence) as having been inspired by Magic.

-Ramzuiv (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramzuiv, thanks for replying. I think your suggestion that we "remove the statement completely" is a good compromise. We could also add a sentence summarising this section to the "Initial development" section; something like "Vaccarino has said that Magic inspired him to start designing games."

CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely can say Magic inspired his work as a designer, particularly its random-each-time and card interactions (see [15]. I do agree that we cannot say specifically that Magic influenced Dominion's design directly, even if it seems obvious from certain elements. Masem (t) 04:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CohenTheBohemian I have now removed that statement. It might still be appropriate to have some similar sentence in that position, but we can do that after coming to some consensus. I think adding information to other parts of the article can also be good.

@Masem I don't think Magic is the only or even main influence on Dominion, but it is certainly one work which has had a direct influence on Dominion (with card interactions being one example of that) Ramzuiv (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is accurate, cited, and accurately reflects the cited source. You don't get to remove it just because you don't like it. If you want to write something else that's more nuanced, add more sources, don't damage the article by removing cited statements. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the statement belongs in the article, is the lead the most appropriate place for this? Seems like it should be more in the development or reception section rather than a detail in the article lead. - Skipple ☎ 18:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is not accurate, therefore I removed it (Edit: I misunderstood. I thought you meant the original statement. The statement that is currently there is indeed accurate. Though it is up for discussion if that is the best place for it) - Ramzuiv (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest something like (1) removing the sentence about inspiration from Magic from the lead, and (2) adding a similar sentence to the last line of paragraph 1 of the "Initial development" section, cited to the same interview. Something along the lines of "Vaccarino has said that Magic inspired him to design games, and introduced him to games with drafting and cards with interacting rules." Thoughts? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Dominion (card game" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dominion (card game has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Dominion (card game until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] NYT

[2] ArsTechnica

[3] TechRadar

[1]

[2]

[3]