Eidolon as an autoinclude is being close-minded imo. Sure, sometimes it's amazing, but some other times it's really meh, especially on the draw.
Right now i have put the 4 Eidolons in the sideboard and even though it's space-consuming i think Burn's doesn't need that much SB slots anyway because you don't want to dilute your maindeck too much with SB'ed answers.
I SB in the Eidolons when i'm on the play and against turbo-cantrips decks like Phoenix or Storm, and I have not really missed them in the MD.
On the topic of LuTS being inconsistent, I believe it is non-sense. Card draw spell can only make your deck more consistent, not less, by nature. Sometimes you'll LUTS into 2 lands : so what ? You make your land drops and that's 2 lands you're not going to draw in the next 2 turns. The argument against LutS would be that it makes the deck slower, which arguably isn't something that Burn wants.
The question isn't that LuTS doesn't deal damage. The real question we should be asking ourselves is if paying R for pseudo-draw-2 is good enough of a card or not. I don't know the answer, but what I do know is that you won't get the answer by theorycrafting only without testing the card for real.
So i've been trying out the spectacles cards as 4-ofs each, cutting some 2 mana cards. However, i can't help but notice that with so many 1 mana spells, Eidolon is hurting us A LOT.
The philosophy behind Eidolon for me was always that despite the effect being symmetrical, you'd still win the race because all of your spells deal damage.
But with 4 [[Light up the Stage]] in, that isn't true anymore.
On the other hand, [[Shrine of Burning Rage]] actually REWARDS you instead of punishing you foe casting a lot of 1 mana spells, including LutS that doesn't deal damage. Additionally, LutS inherently makes us want to play a slightly longer game and helps us make our land drops, whis is exactly what Shrine wants.
Am I crazy thinking that a mono-red version with Shrine could be the besy way to use those Spectacles cards?
Right now i have put the 4 Eidolons in the sideboard and even though it's space-consuming i think Burn's doesn't need that much SB slots anyway because you don't want to dilute your maindeck too much with SB'ed answers.
I SB in the Eidolons when i'm on the play and against turbo-cantrips decks like Phoenix or Storm, and I have not really missed them in the MD.
On the topic of LuTS being inconsistent, I believe it is non-sense. Card draw spell can only make your deck more consistent, not less, by nature. Sometimes you'll LUTS into 2 lands : so what ? You make your land drops and that's 2 lands you're not going to draw in the next 2 turns. The argument against LutS would be that it makes the deck slower, which arguably isn't something that Burn wants.
The question isn't that LuTS doesn't deal damage. The real question we should be asking ourselves is if paying R for pseudo-draw-2 is good enough of a card or not. I don't know the answer, but what I do know is that you won't get the answer by theorycrafting only without testing the card for real.
The philosophy behind Eidolon for me was always that despite the effect being symmetrical, you'd still win the race because all of your spells deal damage.
But with 4 [[Light up the Stage]] in, that isn't true anymore.
On the other hand, [[Shrine of Burning Rage]] actually REWARDS you instead of punishing you foe casting a lot of 1 mana spells, including LutS that doesn't deal damage. Additionally, LutS inherently makes us want to play a slightly longer game and helps us make our land drops, whis is exactly what Shrine wants.
Am I crazy thinking that a mono-red version with Shrine could be the besy way to use those Spectacles cards?