Legendary rule's application to nameless cards.
Asked by slayerx1779 12 years ago
(I ask because I'm making a custom set, for the record.) If I were to use a card that would make a creature token with "(U)(U)(U): This creature becomes a copy of target creature except that it is still Blue and Black, has no name and gains this ability.", would that token then be able to copy a legendary creature without the legendary rule applying, because the token has no name? Also, if two of these tokens copied the same legendary creature, would the legendary rule apply only to the tokens, or is having no name different from having the same name?
Thanks!
slayerx1779 says... #2
So, if I also made the ability mention that the token wouldn't be legendary (if it were to copy a legendary creature), then it wouldn't die regardless?
March 15, 2013 7:30 p.m.
You could just say "The "Legend Rule" doesn't apply to this creature" copying the templaying on Mirror Gallery.
Though the fact that you specify that the creature has no name would also remove the need, as it would not have the same name as another legendary permanent.
March 15, 2013 7:55 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #4
An object with no name can't have the same name as anything else, even something else with no name. The Legend rule won't be able to apply to it.
I'm getting this interpretation from the following rule:
201.2. Two objects have the same name if the English versions of their names are identical.
If the two objects don't have names at all, then they don't have English versions of their names, so they can't have identical English names.
March 16, 2013 12:07 a.m.
KrazyCaley says... #5
What a fascinating empty koan. If two objects have no name, are their names the same in English? My interpretation would be yes, but I don't think the rules resolve the question for certain either way.
March 16, 2013 1:11 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #6
I started to have second thoughts when I remembered the Empty Set is considered to be a subset of itself, and therefore two Empty Sets can be said to be equal, but I did some further research in the MTGSalvation archives and my first response bears out. Granted, the most recent examples I can find are from 6-7 years ago, but the responders are now well-known and relatively high-level judges. Because face down cards have no name, they can't have the same name as something else.
March 16, 2013 10:02 a.m.
So if I had, say four morph cards out and face-down, Homing Lightning wouldn't be able to get all four because they don't actually share a name? That would lend some weight to the nameless legendary token idea.
March 16, 2013 12:58 p.m.
Absinthman says... #8
In order for something to share a name, it must have a name in the first place. Colorless permanents don't share a color either.
March 16, 2013 1:21 p.m.
Absinthman so by some property or analogy or something, you can compare colorless not sharing a color to nameless not sharing a name?
March 16, 2013 4:33 p.m.
If 2 objects both do not have a value for a comparable measure, it does not imply they are equal in that measure. - They simply cannot be compared.
Example:
Viscosity is the measure of a liquids tendency resist gradual deformation by shear stress. From this you can get an accurate knowledge of the liquid based on it's viscosity.... that is to say that it 2 liquids share a viscosity, they are the same substance, or at least share many other characteristics.
If someone were to hand you 2 vials of liquids, and tell you to combine them so long as they have the same viscosity, you could measure them and either combine, or not combine them based on the measure.
But if someone were to hand you 2 solid objects and tell you to combine them if they have the same viscosity... Even if you knew that both objects are the same material, you could not measure the viscosity, and thus could not combine them based on that measure.
... A little long winded, but it should explain why 2 permanents with no name do not share a name.
March 17, 2013 12:51 a.m.
KrazyCaley says... Accepted answer #11
I have determined the probable correct answer by reading Gatherer rulings. For instance, Maelstrom Pulse, and any other card that cares about "same name," has this ruling: "A face-down creature has no name, so it doesn't have the same name as anything else." This would seem to imply that multiple creatures with no name do not have the SAME name.
Thus, the answer to the OP's question is (probably) yes, the legendary rule would fail to kill the no-namers.
March 17, 2013 5:30 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #12
Wow. Of all the "same name" cards I looked at I didn't check Maelstrom Pulse, so of course that's the only one with a rulings note relevant to this question.
hunter9000 says... #1
The only way for a creature to have no name currently is to be a face down morphed creature. I don't know of any way currently to make something legendary without also specifying it's name, like Lazav, Dimir Mastermind does. The legend rule says:
704.5k. If two or more legendary permanents with the same name are on the battlefield, all are put into their owners graveyards. This is called the legend rule. If only one of those permanents is legendary, this rule doesnt apply.
There would have to be an official ruling from Wizards to cover this case, but I'd guess that two legendary creatures with no name would get the axe, since technically their names are the same. But you're in uncharted territory here, so you might as well make a house ruling to go with your custom set.
March 15, 2013 7:21 p.m.