Modern Problems Require Modern Solutions – A Comprehensive Guide to Modern Horizons Draft - Part 1 -The Big Picture

Modern Horizons has proven to be one of the deepest, most complex, and frankly, most difficult draft formats we’ve had in years. Not only are the individual cards markedly more complex than in most sets, (alright, maybe this doesn’t ring totally true after just coming off the heels of War of the Spark) but finding the optimal lane is challenging in a set with countless interwoven synergies and a plethora of playables. This guide to Modern Horizons draft aims to provide big picture ideas to explain what successful MH1 drafts/decks look like, while also delving into specifics of single card evaluation, and archetype (plus sub-archetype) breakdowns.

The Big Picture

What is your mission statement?

When learning a new limited format, one of the first questions I’m looking to answer in my first ten or so drafts is “What is my mission statement for this format?” That is, in a broad sense, what should my deck be trying to do in order to:

A. Best take advantage of how the cards in the format line up against each other

B. Capitalize on the incentives the cards present to you.

For example, in War of the Spark, my mission statement was: Build your deck to include meaningful early plays to pressure Planeswalkers, and ways to go over the top of your opponents bombs in the late game.

Figuring out your mission statement for a given format helps to inform decisions in both your draft and your game-play. During the draft, keeping your mission statement in mind can help you fill in gaps in your current card pool (e.g. When faced with a generically good B- level card and a Lazotep Reaver, consider if you’ve met your quota for meaningful early game plays.) Likewise, during the game, your mission statement can help to inform your plays (e.g. Instead of casting a Tamiyo’s Epiphany, take the less mana efficient play and cast your Burning Prophet because your current board has no chance of pressuring an opposing walker)

For Modern Horizons, my mission statement is: Find the correct balance of disrupting your opponent’s momentum and advancing your own game plan.

You could argue that this is your goal in most games of limited, but thanks to how the archetypes are constructed and how some of the enablers/payoffs operate, this idea is more pronounced than usual. 

Decks in the format tend to snowball the in similar ways that an unopposed walker on turn four did in War of the Spark. UB, RW, UR, GW (and to some extent RB and UG) spiral out of control if they're allowed to enact their game plan and continue to do so unopposed. Each of these decks are trying to do a certain on-board “thing” where each time they get to "do their thing" it becomes much harder for you to make a relevant counter-play. Some examples of decks “doing their thing” are:       

UB: Ninjutsus something out while picking up a good ETB creature   
RW: Plays X sliver each turn, making their team exponentially better 
UR: Triggers a draw 2 effect for cheap or attacking with a Thundering Djinn
BR: Doming you for 4 a few times with Bogardan Dragonheart while gaining incremental  value 

When your opponent is free to carry out these actions uncontested, they start to run away with the game and each successive “thing” they're trying to do becomes easier and more effective. By prioritizing ways to disrupt your opponent’s momentum, (usually cheap removal) you make it meaningfully more difficult for the opponent to get their snowball rolling.

Applying your mission statement

Ok great, we’ve established our mission statement for the format but how do we put this into practice? How is the idea disrupting your opponent’s momentum and advancing your own game plan different than what you do in any other format? Isn’t that just shorthand for use removal on our opponent’s important cards? 

Well, sort of. The thing that differentiates MH1 from many formats is a need for a shift in threat assessment heuristics: 

When in doubt, kill the enabler, don’t wait for the payoff.

One play that I often make that really illustrates how to put this into practice is snapping off a removal spell on your UB opponent’s Faerie Seer or Changing Outcast on turn 1-2. A 1 powered creature in usually not a relevant threat, but if the Ninja deck is allowed to get even one hit with their Ingenious Infiltrator or Moonblade Shinobi, the advantage bar swings sharply in their favor because that’s the start of how the Ninja deck snowballs. The same “kill the enabler on sight” principle is true with cards like Undead auger, Carion Feeder, Bogardan Dragonheart, Gluttonous slug, Hollowhead Sliver and basically any of the gold uncommons.

Cards that look unassuming but have the potential to enable a large part of what you opponent’s deck wants to do usually need to be dealt with ASAP. There are some cases that you do save your removal for their payoffs, for example when you know your deck can brick-wall 2/X’s all day so the only card you really care about from your RW sliver opponent is Cleaving Sliver, but that’s more of the exception than the rule (Slivers sort of inherently blur the enabler/payoff line anyways.)

Ok, so our goal in MH1 is to just kill all of our opponent’s enablers, some of their payoffs and eventually win with a ham sandwich, right? Well not exactly. The enablers and a good chunk of the payoffs are 1-3 mana so unless you somehow ended up with Deflie.dec, you usually won’t have enough cheap removal for your plan A to just be kill anything that hits the table. In addition to this, certain green decks (mainly mutli-coloured snow, snow mill, and GB) can really punish decks that don’t pressure them, as they have ways to go over the top. At the start of the format I had the unfortunate experience of drafting a 12 removal spell RB deck and just when I was about to turn the corner against my opponent, they cast Fact or Fiction into Reap the Past for 7. Yuck.

Here’s where the other half of my mission statement comes in. Your plan A should still be to enact your own plan to close the game out in a timely matter, but you need to balance that with disrupting them when they do something worth disrupting. In practice, this means your plan A should be to make plays that advance your own game plan, but when, for example, your UR opponent plays a premium enabler like Hollowhead Sliver on turn 3, understand that you need to kill it with your Urza’s rage instead of playing your Bogardan Dragonheart.

When trying to find a balance of disruption and enabling your own game plan during the draft, I like to employ a rough 70-30 rule, meaning my picks are largely going to be weighted towards taking card that build towards my own game plan, but I want about 30 percent of you deck to be some form of interaction. Let’s say in pack 3 I’m solidly in UR “draw 2” with three Eyekites and 2 Spinehorn Minotaur and I’m faced with a pick between my third Fist of Flames and my first string of disappearance. Fist of Flames would be a great pick up as the premier enabler for the archetype, but if I’m light on interaction I consider the responsible choice in that situation to be String of Disappearance. You just can’t afford to try in goldfish in this format, no matter how synergistic or linear your deck is.