Talk:The Duelist (magazine)

My name is Johnny L. Wilson. I was the Group Publisher at the time The Duelist became TopDeck magazine. I resent the article's insinuation that TopDeck had very little to do with Magic: The Gathering after the transition. When the magazine became a "flippy" with two covers, the editorial staff tried to keep a balance between MTG and other mature games compared to those of Pokemon and others. There were still strategies, card lists, price lists, AND original art pieces (and covers) related to MTG after the transition. I also object to the implication that this was strictly a house organ. It "was," but we tried to cover the whole field as well--sometimes making our in-house marketing teams (particularly the MTG team) angry. We also covered fantasy/sci-fi books and video/computer games which we had no vested interest in covering. The Duelist was rapidly declining and would have been canceled altogether without the transition. So, the temper of the two comments here seems extremely unfair.

Untitled

 * . Please provide reliable sources. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Issue 42
I hope i do this right, first talk on Wiki, so please correct, if wrong: There is a fault in the description. I have the issue #42 from Duelist in front of me. Different from the previous issues it's called 'Duelist presents.. Magic the Gathering', but it has the markings Volume 6 Issue 10, November 1999 No.42 on it.

Untitled
My next goal is to scan in a full cover personally.

I have almost every issue. Any recommendations? — Mproud 09:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

neutrality tag
''What initially separated The Duelist from other card magazines of its time, such as InQuest or Scrye, was its beautifully detailed pages. Each issue featured a key artist who created a unique cover (often based on an existing Magic card) and whose art was showcased inside the issue (however in later issues, this was cut altogether).''

In addition to being rich with art,

This is the offending part. Especially the 'beautifully detailed pages' irks me as heavily POV. I'll rewrite it myself once I get to it, but I'll leave the tag there for the time being. -- Bakabaka 12:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)