Subject: Fwd: Re: Andrew Willis's email (Vampires and Klingons)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:02:32 -0700
From: sophist@grid.wizards.com (Rob Hahn)
To: kinyonr@Acad.Ripon.EDU
CC: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com

kinyonr@Acad.Ripon.EDU,Earth writes:
>Dear Rob -
>
>    Andrew is right. There needs to be the Magic equivalent of the
>Informator. That is the premiere strategy magazine for Chess. It's

Rob -- let me thank you for your letter.  I haven't answered too many
emails personally but yours made me want to do so.

I completely agree -- I'd like nothing better than to make The Duelist
into the Informator.  I want to make it a magazine that I would want to
buy, you know?

One question I do have is how much one pays for the Informator.  Our
financial requirements are our financial requirements, and I don't know
that we'd want our readers to pay $25 per magazine (which is what it would
be without advertising).

But you are absolutely correct -- we need the Duelist to become more
serious as a publication for Magic.
>
>    There is one major difference between chess and Magic, though, which
>inhibits the creation of an Informator for Magic - the rapid release of
>new expansions. If a new cycle took 2 years, but was a total of four
>expansions totalling roughly the same number of tournament-worthy cards,
>that would help majorly. An expansion every six months instead of every
>three months would settle the tournament scene and allow for deck
>technology to show itself. Let's face it - by the time the Duelist goes
>to press, its articles are woefully outdated. The sets have changed and
>so have the decks. Most people I know only buy the magazines for
>archival purposes. Things like "What won PT-NY again?" I know that you,
>as a member of the Duelist staff, don't have any say in the release of
>expansions, but you have more clout than I do. People will still buy the
>same number of packs and, if the game environment is stable, more people
>will buy packs. A lot of people don't want the new cards because they
>too quickly become the old cards. Most of the cards they want are the
>commons anyways, and the rich/addicted people will give away their
>extras. If people knew that the new cards would still be new in 4
>months, that gives them more incentive to buy packs. I don't know if
>that makes sense, but that's what I've heard from friends who don't buy
>packs anymore.
>
I could bring this up to the Magic team just as a reference for them.  I
don't know that they have this kind of feedback from players either.
>
>    As for articles - cut the fantasy. I personally refuse to buy the
>Duelist because it doesn't have the same type of stuff as the
>Informator. (I don't buy that either, but that's because I don't play
>tournament chess. If I did, I'd have a subscription.) I want to see
>in-depth card analyses and I want to be able to respect those analyses
>because they're good. I want to see play-by-play reports of world-class
>games and reasons for the plays. I want to see analyses of difficult
>positions and reasons why this play over that play. I want to see
>reasons for putting 3 incinerates in one deck and 4 in another. I want
>to see debates by Rade and Steve O'MS over why 5CG doesn't work in
>Extended. I want to see a letters to the editor section similar to
>Dragon magazine, regarding game mechanics and what-not. I want to see
>in-depth articles on things like "Girls in Magic" and "Tournament
>ettiquette." Every six months, the Duelist should also print the latest
>version of the Oracle, both in hardbound and 3-ring binder versions. It
>should also print the Oracle addendum for the latest set(s) and for any
>changes. It should print the complete rules, both in hardbound and
>3-ring binder versions, with addendums for the time since the last
>printing (no less than 3 months and no more than 6, unless you print an
>addendum for each month). I want to see analyses of the mathematics of
>decks. I want to see comparisons to poker, bridge, chess, whatever.
>
>    I do NOT want to see articles that I look at and think "Yup. Reason
>#456 to not buy this crappy magazine." I do NOT want to see fantasy.
>That belongs in a quarterly devoted solely to that and costing $10, not
>in a strategy magazine.
>    I do NOT want to see decklists for a format that doesn't exist
>anymore. That belongs in a "Best of..." quarterly or yearly devoted to
>that and costing $19.95.
>    I do NOT want to see 1 page blurbs claiming to be a complete
>analysis of a card. Have you ever seen an analysis of a chess position?
>A friend of mine once showed me how to analyze a chess position - it
>takes over an hour and that's for a superficial analysis. A full
>analysis can easily take 15-30 pages. That's what I want to see for
>cards like Pox and Geddon and Cataclysm and stuff. I want to see why it
>interacts well with this card and why not with that. This means you're
>going to have to write about the responses, the reasons why the card
>doesn't work. You're going to have to burst bubbles. You're going to
>have to really think about this card for more than 5 minutes. And you
>know what? You can't do that with the super-fast rate of releases. I
>don't want to know about the interaction between Geddon and Ehrnam.
>That's old hat. I want to see something I don't know about. I want to
>see why Geddon DOESN'T work. Why isn't every deck a Geddon deck?? Why
>didn't a Geddon deck win Nationals last year? Why isn't it favored for
>this year? Or is it favored for this year?
>    I do NOT want to see tons of graphics. You're not putting out an art
>magazine. You're putting out a strategy magazine. The amount of graphics
>in your magazine makes it look like you're starved for content. The
>large print and high spacing makes it look you're desperately trying to
>fill X pages before your deadline. Highly unprofessional.
>
>What needs to happen before I buy the Duelist:
>1) No fantasy. Just the facts.
>2) Good facts. No bullshit. No stupid stuff.
>3) Analyses. Good analyses. Stuff that makes me think and teaches me
>something.
>4) More print and less graphics.
>5) Good articles on real issues written by people who actually did
>research.
>6) Puzzles and situations where the correct move isn't clear.
>7) A forum-type section where an issue can be discussed by letter,
>similar to Dragon magazine or the Dojo's Current Issues section.
>8) Debates by top players on the merits of a card or combo or deck.
>9) Up-to-date stuff that I can use. I don't need to know about the T2
>environment before IA left. That format doesn't exist anymore. I need to
>know about today's environment. I need to know it now.

So, here's a question: What can we do that the Dojo or Mindripper can't do
better?  In terms of keeping on top of the metagame/environment, we are
just not going to be competitive with the Internet.  So what is our
strength as a publication?  What would make you want to subscribe to The
Duelist despite getting all your tournament-related information off the
Net?

-rsh