So I was stewing an Aralheim set, based on said M:EM plane. The plane has werewolves, thus it's DFC time, and I know one of the things I want to do is a legendary werewolf. Of course, there's the awful quirk of the legend rule missing until they're in the same transform state, so I thought... it's one card, though with two faces, would it be possible for a double faced legend to have the same name on both sides? Quickly I came up with this.

Skoll Suneater

Legendary Creature – Human Warrior Werewolf [MR]
Double Strike, Protection from Spells
At the beginning of each upkeep, if no spells were cast last turn, transform Skoll Suneater.
“I have swallowed a fire greater than you can imagine…”
2/3
//
Skoll Suneater
[] Legendary Creature – Werewolf Horror [MR]
Double Strike, Protection from Spells
Whenever a creature or enchantment is put into the graveyard from the battlefield, exile it and put a +1/+1 counter on Skoll Suneater.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if a player cast two or more spells last turn, transform Skoll Suneater.
“… It and I must both be fed.”
5/5

I'd like any thoughts on both the concept and the card, since if the "one name for both sides" idea is idiotic for reasons I was insufficiently caffeinated to register, it's easy enough to rename the day side "Skoll Sunhunter" or something else similar.

It's probably not rules-workable, since by the current guidelines all unique card names correspond to exactly one card face. So you can't have a split card named Divide // Conquer or other things like that.

those rules could be changed.

maybe.

I don't know if that's a terrible idea, it might be.

About a year ago, I actually had an idea for a set based around courtly intrigue, political subterfuge, disguise and underhanded dealings - with sort of a hook for the set of "discovering secrets". Inside my brain I had the idea of double-faced legendary creatures, but from a different angle than yours. Basically, the same legendary creature would have different disguises and thus different "cardbacks", and many of the legendary creatures would actually share disguises, the disguises being colorless creatures. It could have looked like this:


Backalley Beggar --
Creature - Human Rogue
~ can't be blocked by creatures with power 3 or greater.
If ~ would leave the battlefield, instead transform it.
2/1
///
Prince Fhin'Tuin
Legendary Creature - Human Noble
Whenever ~ deals combat damage, draw a card.
: ~ can't be blocked until end of turn.
3/3

So, there would only be one Prince Fhin'Tuin, but more legendaries could use the same disguise. And Prince Fhin'Tuin would also have other disguises.

I have no idea if it would be physically possible to print cards like these with so many different combinations, but the idea still appeals to me. Also, the same idea included level up cards that transformed when they reached a specific level, but whatev.

that sounds really clever but yeah I think that would be kind of a nightmare

I mean, technically it's just a different take on morphs, but with different abilities. The disguised creature should be good enough (but not great) to be played on their own merit (like morphs), but one would never really know who it was. As a thought experiment I like it, but in actual paper Magic, it would probably never works logistically.
[/threadjack]

Is there a flavor reason the card has to have the same name? Even in instances where the transformation is known and positive there is generally a different name for the transformed state. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is Workaholics thought when Ders transforms into "The Ders". Then again I guess Optimus Prime is always Optimus Prime...

Something like Skoll Suneater and Skoll Mooneater?

you mean Tevy's card? it has to so the legend rule functions properly.

Withengar Unbound works fine as a double faced Legend. A bit more acceptable flavorwise though? Still, it's not as though you can't have two different versions of Niv Mizzet or Mikaeus on the field...