<p><strong>Each player can have their own Slimefoot, the Stowaway. The legend rule applies only to permanents controlled by the same player; the other players' permanents are not taken into account.</strong></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>704.5j If a player controls two or more legendary permanents with the same name, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards. This is called the “legend rule.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Originally, the legend rule did take all players into account, so there really could be only one legendary pemanent with any given name on the battlefield, but that was changed at some point.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-13T11:28:25.110Z
But let me say this: the past-rule  was much more fascinating. The original legendary permanent - in the whole  Dominaria -  must be only one!
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-13T21:22:53.707Z
Also, there's no rule against summoning a Legendary when you already have one. It's just that one goes away as a SBA. So, for instance, if you have a Legendary creature with damage, you can summon another copy of the creature and keep the one without damage. And if you have Rules Lawyer, you can keep both.
Acccumulation
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-13T23:15:58.927Z
@Acccumulation They are talking about the very first Legend rule.  Originally, having a Legendary permanent on the battlefield prevented any player from even playing another copy.  I believe the first update to this was in Kamigawa when it went to the "elimination" rule, then I think Theros is where it went to the one-sided elimination rule.  in both cases, it led to better gameplay since the progression of those rules reduced the benefit the player got from winning the die roll and getting their Legend out first.
CALEB F
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-14T09:45:41.977Z
You mean "the DICE roll"...isn't it, Caleb? Anyway, what you are saying it is true. The game is better now. But less fascinating, too.
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-14T15:56:00.690Z
@ManoFromBerlin The English word "dice" is actually a plural word.  The singular form is "die":

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/die#Noun_2
CALEB F
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-14T16:16:30.603Z
Never heard about it...I can't believe it ... isn't it that you haven't forgiven me yet that, that wretched time, I inverted your comment with that of Gendolkari ??
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-14T16:19:39.557Z
And generally, the English word "die" means ... er, something else!
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-14T16:40:52.513Z
@ManoFromBerlin Nah, I don't feel bad about that.  I just know that English is not your first language and wanted to help you out with it.  I wasn't trying to be mean or a know-it-all about it, so sorry if it came off that way!  And yes, die is definitely a loaded term (pun intended)!
CALEB F
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-14T17:25:08.777Z
I think this discusssion is better continued in chat, unless you have more questions about my answer specifically
Hackworth
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-21T15:56:57.843Z
However, I added a side question to the original question: something that has not been answered by what is present here, although excellent.
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-21T16:06:23.613Z
@ManoFromBerlin Please avoid editing old questions with follow-up questions, this is not how Stack Exchange sites work: we strongly encourage only 1 question per thread. Since my answer addresses your original question, what happens to multiple legendaries, your question is more about how copying permanents works. That is only tangentially related to legendaries and should go into its own question.
Hackworth
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-21T16:17:28.890Z
It is true,excuse me.However, your answer was unclear on this point,although it did provide clarification on the new rules.But there is a point in the question that has not been given enough attention in your answer,where it says:"If Traxos  is in play, any player cannot castCopyArtifact and choose to copyTraxos.Or however, if it does,CopyArtifact immediately ends up in its owner's graveyard".I was wrong to accept it, because this part was actually missing.At the time I was amazed that the old rule had been changed, and I really didn't know.Anyway,take your time, you are not obliged to answer!
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-22T10:21:27.427Z
In any case, I rewrote the secondary question, linking it to this. The side question is now a proper question called:-"Is it possible to copy a Legend that is on the battlefield on your side?"
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-13T11:14:03.277Z
2020-01-13T11:14:03.277Z
Hackworth
<p>According to the Legend rule, Legendary Creatures - or simply Legends - can be summoned only if a Legend with the same name as the one a player would like to summon is not already in play.</p>

<p>This obviously means that <strong>two identical legendary creature cards cannot be simultaneously present on the battlefield</strong>; but it also means that no player can summon cards like <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bClone%5d">Clone</a>, or <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bCopy%20Artifact%5d">Copy Artifact</a>, if their owner chooses a Legend as the artifact creature or creature to copy.</p>

<p>For example, if <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bTraxos%2c%20Scourge%20of%20Kroog%5d">Traxos, Scourge of Kroog</a> is in play, any player cannot cast Copy Artifact and choose to copy Traxos.<br>
Or if it does, Copy Artifact immediately ends up in its owner's graveyard.</p>

<p>Assuming that what is reported is correct, the question is then the following: </p>

<ul>
<li>A player has on the battlefield <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bVesuvan%20Doppelganger%5d">Vesuvan Doppelganger</a>, who has already copied another creature in play.  </li>
<li>Later in the game, the opponent summons <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bSlimefoot%2c%20the%20Stowaway%5d">Slimefoot, the Stowaway</a>.  </li>
<li>In the next upkeep phase, the player controlling Vesuvan Doppelganger then intends to copy it.  </li>
<li>However, if the latter chose Slimefoot as the object of his next transformation, the Vesuvan Shapeshifter would be immediately taken to its owner's graveyard.</li>
</ul>

<p>Is everything reported correct?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-13T13:02:16.120Z
The legend rule you're referencing hasn't been in the game for something like twenty years. What rules source are you looking at?
doppelgreener
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-13T16:44:40.537Z
The rule I'm talking about was the first to come out.The rule I am talking about was clearly visible in the instruction booklet present in theLegendsBasicDecks.When the Legends came out,I played a little with that expansion,and so I used it very little.But nevertheless I believed that this basic rule had remained unchanged.Which I learn now is wrong.So,under the current rule,the opponent can play Legends equal to mine,or copy them.Instead, the player who has aLegend in play, cannot transform his Vesuvan Doppelganger with the appearance of the Legend that is in play on his side. Is it correct?
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-13T17:13:20.770Z
Ok, I see. I thought you might be a newer player learning the rules from an outdated source. Sounds like you've been playing for a long time and just didn't come across some changes.
doppelgreener
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-14T09:41:04.983Z
I am an old-fashioned player. The story I am telling is that of a player from the Alpha & Beta times, who, poisoned by a sleeping potion during an old Magic match, falls asleep for twenty-five years ... and awakens with the rules of the game completely changed. And he can't stand the new rules !! So, all he does is continually ask if the given rule has changed, or if it has remained more or less the same ... making himself unbearable, and making all the new players die with laughter: but these last are also immature, fierce ... but extremely superb,too.
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-21T16:23:13.340Z
Do not add more questions to your question post, especially after answers have been posted. If you have a new question, you can make a new question post with that question.
murgatroid99
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-22T16:05:22.473Z
I'd like to tell @DohnJoe that his editing has been accepted. You have eliminated from my question parts that are really out of place, due to my ignorance of the current rules ... I assumed that the "legend rule",since 1994,had always remained unchanged! And I wrote laughing-bestiality ... like: "According to the well-known rule" ... (!!) which is an example of misplaced claims rightly eliminated. What about: ... thank you! You all are officially invited to smile at my mistakes!
ManoFromBerlin
<magic-the-gathering><mtg-legendary-cards>
Is it possible, controlling Vesuvan Doppelganger, to have two legends with the same name in play at the same time?
ManoFromBerlin
# Is it possible, controlling Vesuvan Doppelganger, to have two legends with the same name in play at the same time?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-01-13)

According to the Legend rule, Legendary Creatures - or simply Legends - can be summoned only if a Legend with the same name as the one a player would like to summon is not already in play.

This obviously means that **two identical legendary creature cards cannot be simultaneously present on the battlefield**; but it also means that no player can summon cards like [Clone](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bClone%5d), or [Copy Artifact](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bCopy%20Artifact%5d), if their owner chooses a Legend as the artifact creature or creature to copy.

For example, if [Traxos, Scourge of Kroog](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bTraxos%2c%20Scourge%20of%20Kroog%5d) is in play, any player cannot cast Copy Artifact and choose to copy Traxos.  
Or if it does, Copy Artifact immediately ends up in its owner's graveyard.

Assuming that what is reported is correct, the question is then the following:

* A player has on the battlefield [Vesuvan Doppelganger](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bVesuvan%20Doppelganger%5d), who has already copied another creature in play.
* Later in the game, the opponent summons [Slimefoot, the Stowaway](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bSlimefoot%2c%20the%20Stowaway%5d).
* In the next upkeep phase, the player controlling Vesuvan Doppelganger then intends to copy it.
* However, if the latter chose Slimefoot as the object of his next transformation, the Vesuvan Shapeshifter would be immediately taken to its owner's graveyard.

Is everything reported correct?

**Tags:** magic-the-gathering, mtg-legendary-cards

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The legend rule you're referencing hasn't been in the game for something like twenty years. What rules source are you looking at?  
> **username_0**: The rule I'm talking about was the first to come out.The rule I am talking about was clearly visible in the instruction booklet present in theLegendsBasicDecks.When the Legends came out,I played a little with that expansion,and so I used it very little.But nevertheless I believed that this basic rule had remained unchanged.Which I learn now is wrong.So,under the current rule,the opponent can play Legends equal to mine,or copy them.Instead, the player who has aLegend in play, cannot transform his Vesuvan Doppelganger with the appearance of the Legend that is in play on his side. Is it correct?  
> **username_1**: Ok, I see. I thought you might be a newer player learning the rules from an outdated source. Sounds like you've been playing for a long time and just didn't come across some changes.  
> **username_0**: I am an old-fashioned player. The story I am telling is that of a player from the Alpha & Beta times, who, poisoned by a sleeping potion during an old Magic match, falls asleep for twenty-five years ... and awakens with the rules of the game completely changed. And he can't stand the new rules !! So, all he does is continually ask if the given rule has changed, or if it has remained more or less the same ... making himself unbearable, and making all the new players die with laughter: but these last are also immature, fierce ... but extremely superb,too.  
> **username_2**: Do not add more questions to your question post, especially after answers have been posted. If you have a new question, you can make a new question post with that question.  
> **username_0**: I'd like to tell @DohnJoe that his editing has been accepted. You have eliminated from my question parts that are really out of place, due to my ignorance of the current rules ... I assumed that the "legend rule",since 1994,had always remained unchanged! And I wrote laughing-bestiality ... like: "According to the well-known rule" ... (!!) which is an example of misplaced claims rightly eliminated. What about: ... thank you! You all are officially invited to smile at my mistakes!  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-01-13. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

**Each player can have their own Slimefoot, the Stowaway. The legend rule applies only to permanents controlled by the same player; the other players' permanents are not taken into account.**

> 704.5j If a player controls two or more legendary permanents with the same name, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards. This is called the “legend rule.”

Originally, the legend rule did take all players into account, so there really could be only one legendary pemanent with any given name on the battlefield, but that was changed at some point.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: But let me say this: the past-rule  was much more fascinating. The original legendary permanent - in the whole  Dominaria -  must be only one!  
> **username_4**: Also, there's no rule against summoning a Legendary when you already have one. It's just that one goes away as a SBA. So, for instance, if you have a Legendary creature with damage, you can summon another copy of the creature and keep the one without damage. And if you have Rules Lawyer, you can keep both.  
> **username_5**: @username_4 They are talking about the very first Legend rule.  Originally, having a Legendary permanent on the battlefield prevented any player from even playing another copy.  I believe the first update to this was in Kamigawa when it went to the "elimination" rule, then I think Theros is where it went to the one-sided elimination rule.  in both cases, it led to better gameplay since the progression of those rules reduced the benefit the player got from winning the die roll and getting their Legend out first.  
> **username_0**: You mean "the DICE roll"...isn't it, username_5? Anyway, what you are saying it is true. The game is better now. But less fascinating, too.  
> **username_5**: @username_0 The English word "dice" is actually a plural word.  The singular form is "die":  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/die#Noun_2  
> **username_0**: Never heard about it...I can't believe it ... isn't it that you haven't forgiven me yet that, that wretched time, I inverted your comment with that of Gendolkari ??  
> **username_0**: And generally, the English word "die" means ... er, something else!  
> **username_5**: @username_0 Nah, I don't feel bad about that.  I just know that English is not your first language and wanted to help you out with it.  I wasn't trying to be mean or a know-it-all about it, so sorry if it came off that way!  And yes, die is definitely a loaded term (pun intended)!  
> **username_3**: I think this discusssion is better continued in chat, unless you have more questions about my answer specifically  
> **username_0**: However, I added a side question to the original question: something that has not been answered by what is present here, although excellent.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 Please avoid editing old questions with follow-up questions, this is not how Stack Exchange sites work: we strongly encourage only 1 question per thread. Since my answer addresses your original question, what happens to multiple legendaries, your question is more about how copying permanents works. That is only tangentially related to legendaries and should go into its own question.  
> **username_0**: It is true,excuse me.However, your answer was unclear on this point,although it did provide clarification on the new rules.But there is a point in the question that has not been given enough attention in your answer,where it says:"If Traxos  is in play, any player cannot castCopyArtifact and choose to copyTraxos.Or however, if it does,CopyArtifact immediately ends up in its owner's graveyard".I was wrong to accept it, because this part was actually missing.At the time I was amazed that the old rule had been changed, and I really didn't know.Anyway,take your time, you are not obliged to answer!  
> **username_0**: In any case, I rewrote the secondary question, linking it to this. The side question is now a proper question called:-"Is it possible to copy a Legend that is on the battlefield on your side?"  

---

