Introduction
In Duel Masters, there is the concept of "mana placement."
Everyone thinks they are doing it naturally, but in reality, it is incredibly difficult.
Unlike other TCGs where you can increase your resources with relatively little hesitation—like Land cards in MTG, Cores in Battle Spirits, Resources in Gundam, or Energy cards in Pokemon—Duel Masters constantly asks you every turn: "Tell me which card in your hand is currently the most unnecessary."
And what if it's the first turn of the game, and you don't even know what your opponent's deck is?
Understanding That We Cannot Understand Each Other
This isn't about the physical card game, but rather Duel Masters Plays. Recently, a certain tweet became a hot topic.
Since it featured a deck list that I personally had just achieved results with, I decided to take a look at the public opinion.
As a major premise, these kinds of quizzes result in wildly divided opinions even among top-tier players.
After endless discussion, you often reach the conclusion: "We have realized that our philosophies cannot be reconciled." If everyone could correctly identify the "correct" answer—which was supposedly charging Misery in this quiz—there would be no wars in this world.
(As a side note, even in that environment, Andante-san is the only one whose logic and risk-return comparison policies are close to mine, allowing us to reach an agreement after deep analysis. Having even one such partner makes testing much more encouraging, so I recommend looking for one.)
Now, as for my personal opinion, I feel like I would charge Zanbari.
However, the correct answer was apparently charging Misery. Even though I became number one in Japan with this deck, I was "wrong."
The Meta Card You Can Charge in 2 Seconds
This isn't the essence of this article, but it wouldn't be fair not to share my reasoning, so I'll keep it brief.
Even assuming the opponent is using an aggro deck:
Turn 1 (Me): Pass
Turn 1 (Opponent): Blaze or Hop
Turn 2 (Me): Destroy with Dousiza
Turn 2 (Opponent): G-G-G or Pass
Turn 3 (Me): Based on the opening hand, if the top 2 draws don't provide an answer, there's nothing much to do
Turn 3 (Opponent): Something + G-G-G
I think this would be the average scenario, but in that process, I didn't really see a clear moment to use Zanbari. I figured I'd apply pressure with two Dousizas as needed, look toward Misery if Turn 4 opened up, and if I got attacked, I'd look for answers from the shields anyway. While Zanbari might be used for a comeback after being hit, I felt keeping it in hand made the hand management far too cramped.
Conversely, if I keep Misery, it becomes a maximum return hand against Dark Item decks, and it's a perfect target for Bagin on Turn 2 or Grigan on Turn 3 regardless of the matchup. Even if I don't draw resource items by Turn 4, I value the ability to dig for them with Misery or push through with small creatures, so I would likely end up charging Zanbari.
On the other hand, I can strongly sympathize with the feeling that Misery isn't very promising when looking at this hand in isolation. Having used this deck a lot, I know that even if you play Turn 3 Dousiza into Turn 4 Misery, it often ends up being a wasted effort regardless of the matchup.
Even considering that, based on the potential of top-decking cards that synergize with Misery and the fact that two Dousizas and a Misery are sufficient against hypothetical enemies, I'd still probably charge Zanbari.
It's a case of "I understand both sides, but I'd probably go with this one."
I repeat, this debate is not the essence of this article. What I want to address is the reason I saw scattered around the community for "absolutely never charging Zanbari."
The "No Point in Including It if You Charge It" Argument
The conclusion is as these tweets say, but isn't the insistence on holding onto Zanbari—a meta card specifically intended for certain matchups—just an unconscious desire to justify the strategy you prepared beforehand? That is the claim I want to make in this article.
An argument often seen in these discussions is: "If you're going to charge [Card X], there was no point in putting it in the deck." From my perspective, that is a failure of sound judgment; it's an extreme or emotional argument.
Of course, the meaning of including the card doesn't disappear just because you charge it. Meta cards are essentially a luxury; you first prepare a core axis of movement that can handle things broadly and strongly, and only when that axis has room do you lean into specific matchups. If you can use it effectively, you use it. If you value a meta card so much that you break your core axis, then the thing being most "countered" by that meta card is your own thinking.
In this example, charging Misery doesn't go as far as breaking the axis. It's more like "it makes sense." That's why the post I'm referencing (which is separate from the opening hand quiz) included a disclaimer.
How would you feel if, immediately after charging the Zanbari you included specifically for aggro matchups, your opponent triumphantly played Blaze Claw? You would likely feel at least a little disappointed.
Are you perhaps fearing that "feeling of disappointment" too much? If you've anticipated that scenario, it's perfectly fine to be disappointed.
What if they charged Doglass instead? You'd probably pump your fist in victory. That's what mana charging is: a judgment of how to allocate percentages for expected situations and what you are willing to tolerate.
Using the word "absolutely" is just noise, and if you leap to "there's no point in including it if you charge it," there's a possibility you've unconsciously swapped logic for the emotional fact that you simply don't want to see that specific outcome.
The same can be said for playstyle. Cognitive bias often kicks in because we want to convince ourselves we are right.
The important thing is whether you can always look at yourself objectively through metacognition. Without being bound by fixed ideas or cognitive biases, you should simply look at the optimal solution for that specific moment. If you keep Zanbari after doing that, that's perfectly fine. That is the only way the inclusion of the card truly gains meaning.
Conclusion
One last short story to wrap up.
If you had game data that you spent 1 million yen on and still log into every day, could you delete it?
If doing so makes you feel like that 1 million yen or those days were wasted, then you aren't playing the game—the game is playing you.
The past is the past; now is now. If you want to change your life significantly, you must sometimes prioritize destroying the things you've built up—the things that carry the most bias.
You ask why, even though it's a waste?
Because the meaning doesn't disappear.
I'm usually acting like a total fool on my Duel Masters Plays streams, so come watch sometime! 🥰
ZweiLance
