Scry gets exponentially more powerful as you increase the number of cards you see.
Scry 1 gives you two options:
Keep the card you saw. The next card you draw is that one.
Pitch the card you saw. The next card you draw is a random other card (unless you have only one card in your library).
Scry 2 gives you the following five options:
Same order. Next draws are Card #1 (C1) then Card #2 (C2).
Switch order. Next draws are C2 then C1.
Pitch C1. Next draws are C2 then a random other card.
Pitch C2. Next draws are C1 then a random other card.
Pitch both cards. Next draws are a random other card and then a random other card.
Scry 3 gives you the following SIXTEEN options:
Same order. Next draws are C1, then C2, then C3.
Switch order. Next draws are C1, then C3, then C2.
Switch order. Next draws are C2, then C1, then C3.
Switch order. Next draws are C2, then C3, then C1.
Switch order. Next draws are C3, then C1, then C2.
Switch order. Next draws are C3, then C2, then C1.
Pitch C1, same order. Next draws are C2, then C3, then a random other card.
Pitch C1, switch order. Next draws are C3, then C2, then a random other card.
Pitch C2, same order. Next draws are C1, then C3, then a random other card.
Pitch C2, switch order. Next draws are C3, then C1, then a random other card.
Pitch C3, same order. Next draws are C1, then C2, then a random other card.
Pitch C3, switch order. Next draws are C2, then C1, then a random other card.
Pitch C1 and C2. Next draws are C3, then a random card, then a random other card.
Pitch C1 and C3. Next draws are C2, then a random card, then a random other card.
Pitch C2 and C3. Next draws are C1, then a random card, then a random other card.
Pitch all three. Next draws are a random other card, then a random other card, then a random other card.
This doesn't even count the difference in the amount of information you gain. Seeing three turns into the future (compared to one or even two turns) allows you to plan things much more effectively because you know so much more. The added context will help you figure out whether something that you're seeing is a dead draw or not. Not to mention that digging deeper is it's own added benefit. I'm also not counting the subtle variations that come with putting the pitched cards on the bottom of your library in various orders.
Now consider Preordain. It would be terrible without Scry 2, but Scry 2 makes it extremely powerful. Even Serum Visions is strong. If you put Scry 2 on something that's already decent, i.e. a CIPT dual land, it's going to be bonkers.
After all, take a middling card - let's say Shock - and add Scry 2. Then make it cost one mana more. What do you get? Magma Jet. And Magma Jet is really strong. This suggests that Scry 2 is more valuable than one mana. And a CIPT land effectively costs you one mana over a non-CIPT land. So, Scry 2 + CIPT is still a net advantage, which means that the Scrylands might have easily been the most powerful duals ever printed (without a basic land type) if they had Scry 2.
Heaven forbid you should attach Scry 3 to them.
For the record, Scry 4 gives you a whopping SIXTY-FIVE options.
(The formula for "Scry X" is X! + X!/1! + X!/2! + X!/3! ... + X!/(X-1)! + X!/X! = # of options.)
Which is more powerful, New Benalia or Coastal Tower? I'd actually call it about even, because it entirely depends on the deck. If that's an acceptable judgment, then wouldn't Temple of Silence be just as appropriate at uncommon as Arcane Sanctum is?
Another way to look at it is like this: Temple of Silence is pretty much just a rough compromise between Arcane Sanctum and New Benalia, both uncommons. (After this "compromise," each produces two different colors of mana, and each has Scry 0.5. That's only short half-a-scry per card, which is negligible.) Arcane Sanctum is a strong uncommon (let's say 5 out of 5); New Benalia seems middling (let's say 3 out of 5). This suggests that if Temple of Silence were an uncommon, it would still rank only slightly higher than a 4 out of 5 in terms of power.
On a slightly different note, I really wish these were uncommon because non-rare, enemy-colored duals are practically nonexistent (save for the Ravnica gates and bouncelands). Of course, it doesn't matter how many reasons I give for why these should be uncommon, because WotC is not going to change them.
The text on the card makes it appear that you can. "You may pair this creature with another unpaired creature when either enters the battlefield. They remain paired for as long as you control both of them." I guess that "another" implies that the already soulbound creature must instead be unbound too. I was reading it as just any time a creature entered as long as you hadn't already bound the new creature to something it was still "another unpaired creature."
Yeah, the wording for the reminder text of the soulbond mechanic is TERRIBLE. Granted, "paired" denotes that only two are involved, but, really, it's missing an intervening "if" clause and should have been worded:
Soulbond (As long as this creature is unpaired, you may pair it with another unpaired creature when either enters the battlefield. They remain paired as long as you control both of them.)
So, uh, why is Wolfir Silverheart templated differently from other soulbond cards?
Quote from Wolfir Silverheart »
As long as Wolfir Silverheart is paired with another creature, each of those creatures gets +4/+4.
Quote from Silverblade Paladin »
As long as Silverblade Paladin is paired with another creature, both creatures have double strike.
Does "those creatures" refer to the multiple creatures that could be paired with a single Wolfir Silverheart (if those creatures kept dying)? If so, shouldn't it read "that creature gets +4/+4" instead?
Is there actually a rules difference? Or did WotC think people would misinterpret "both creatures get +4/+4" as instructing them to distribute that bonus across the two creatures? Alternately, why doesn't Silverblade Paladin read, "each of those creatures has double strike"? That way they could at least be consistent, if not unambiguous.
Did WotC templating just mess up? Or were they on vacation?
In any case, I am tentatively interpreting this as an exception until proven otherwise.
Scry gets exponentially more powerful as you increase the number of cards you see.
Scry 1 gives you two options:
- Keep the card you saw. The next card you draw is that one.
- Pitch the card you saw. The next card you draw is a random other card (unless you have only one card in your library).
Scry 2 gives you the following five options:- Same order. Next draws are Card #1 (C1) then Card #2 (C2).
- Switch order. Next draws are C2 then C1.
- Pitch C1. Next draws are C2 then a random other card.
- Pitch C2. Next draws are C1 then a random other card.
- Pitch both cards. Next draws are a random other card and then a random other card.
Scry 3 gives you the following SIXTEEN options:- Same order. Next draws are C1, then C2, then C3.
- Switch order. Next draws are C1, then C3, then C2.
- Switch order. Next draws are C2, then C1, then C3.
- Switch order. Next draws are C2, then C3, then C1.
- Switch order. Next draws are C3, then C1, then C2.
- Switch order. Next draws are C3, then C2, then C1.
- Pitch C1, same order. Next draws are C2, then C3, then a random other card.
- Pitch C1, switch order. Next draws are C3, then C2, then a random other card.
- Pitch C2, same order. Next draws are C1, then C3, then a random other card.
- Pitch C2, switch order. Next draws are C3, then C1, then a random other card.
- Pitch C3, same order. Next draws are C1, then C2, then a random other card.
- Pitch C3, switch order. Next draws are C2, then C1, then a random other card.
- Pitch C1 and C2. Next draws are C3, then a random card, then a random other card.
- Pitch C1 and C3. Next draws are C2, then a random card, then a random other card.
- Pitch C2 and C3. Next draws are C1, then a random card, then a random other card.
- Pitch all three. Next draws are a random other card, then a random other card, then a random other card.
This doesn't even count the difference in the amount of information you gain. Seeing three turns into the future (compared to one or even two turns) allows you to plan things much more effectively because you know so much more. The added context will help you figure out whether something that you're seeing is a dead draw or not. Not to mention that digging deeper is it's own added benefit. I'm also not counting the subtle variations that come with putting the pitched cards on the bottom of your library in various orders.Now consider Preordain. It would be terrible without Scry 2, but Scry 2 makes it extremely powerful. Even Serum Visions is strong. If you put Scry 2 on something that's already decent, i.e. a CIPT dual land, it's going to be bonkers.
After all, take a middling card - let's say Shock - and add Scry 2. Then make it cost one mana more. What do you get? Magma Jet. And Magma Jet is really strong. This suggests that Scry 2 is more valuable than one mana. And a CIPT land effectively costs you one mana over a non-CIPT land. So, Scry 2 + CIPT is still a net advantage, which means that the Scrylands might have easily been the most powerful duals ever printed (without a basic land type) if they had Scry 2.
Heaven forbid you should attach Scry 3 to them.
For the record, Scry 4 gives you a whopping SIXTY-FIVE options.
(The formula for "Scry X" is X! + X!/1! + X!/2! + X!/3! ... + X!/(X-1)! + X!/X! = # of options.)
Another way to look at it is like this: Temple of Silence is pretty much just a rough compromise between Arcane Sanctum and New Benalia, both uncommons. (After this "compromise," each produces two different colors of mana, and each has Scry 0.5. That's only short half-a-scry per card, which is negligible.) Arcane Sanctum is a strong uncommon (let's say 5 out of 5); New Benalia seems middling (let's say 3 out of 5). This suggests that if Temple of Silence were an uncommon, it would still rank only slightly higher than a 4 out of 5 in terms of power.
On a slightly different note, I really wish these were uncommon because non-rare, enemy-colored duals are practically nonexistent (save for the Ravnica gates and bouncelands). Of course, it doesn't matter how many reasons I give for why these should be uncommon, because WotC is not going to change them.
Yeah, the wording for the reminder text of the soulbond mechanic is TERRIBLE. Granted, "paired" denotes that only two are involved, but, really, it's missing an intervening "if" clause and should have been worded:
So, uh, why is Wolfir Silverheart templated differently from other soulbond cards?
Does "those creatures" refer to the multiple creatures that could be paired with a single Wolfir Silverheart (if those creatures kept dying)? If so, shouldn't it read "that creature gets +4/+4" instead?
Is there actually a rules difference? Or did WotC think people would misinterpret "both creatures get +4/+4" as instructing them to distribute that bonus across the two creatures? Alternately, why doesn't Silverblade Paladin read, "each of those creatures has double strike"? That way they could at least be consistent, if not unambiguous.
Did WotC templating just mess up? Or were they on vacation?
In any case, I am tentatively interpreting this as an exception until proven otherwise.