Here's a question, say I have a Deft Duelist in play, could I attack with her, then dig out Steel of the Godhead and attach it to her? Sovereigns of Lost Alara don't specifically say, "Attach Aura to Target Creature". If you can: FTW!
Correct. Shroud doesn't interfere with putting the Aura into play attached to the creature because Soveriegns of Alara's triggered ability doesn't target the creature. You simply put the Aura into play attached to that creature. Note: Protection, on the other hand, would prevent this, as protection has an additional rule regarding Auras being attached to objects.
no aura card could enchant the creature since it has shroud, so surely it doesn't work....?
Shroud does not interfere with whether an Aura could be attached to a creature. It may prevent a spell or ability from targeting a creature, but an Aura in play doesn't target anything. Note: As I said previously, this is unlike protection, because protection has a specific rule that affects the legality of an Aura being attached to a creature. Shroud does not equal protection in that respect.
but aura's do target creatures, surely, you attach an aura to target creature. Don't get me wrong, I want to believe your version because I want to play empyrial archangel and indestructibility.
If i played this combo with friends, they I don't think I would be able to convince them that it's a legal combo, and I can't blame them.
are you saying creatures with shroud can still be targeted with auras? don't aura's count as spells? and creatures with shroud can't be the target of spells or abilities.
but aura's do target creatures, surely, you attach an aura to target creature. Don't get me wrong, I want to believe your version because I want to play empyrial archangel and indestructibility.
are you saying creatures with shroud can still be targeted with auras? don't aura's count as spells? and creatures with shroud can't be the target of spells or abilities.
where am i going wrong?
There's a different between an Aura spell and an Aura permanent. An Aura SPELL targets. So, when you cast Indestructibility, you have to pick a legal target for the spell. Shroud would prevent something from being a legal target for the spell.
An Aura card, itself, being put onto the battlefield doesn't target anything. It's just put onto the battlefield by the instruction of that spell or ability. You would simply pick a legal object to enchant, and shroud doesn't interfere with that.
Further, once the Aura is on the battlefield, it doesn't target anything. It is simply attached to whatever object it is enchanting. This isn't "targeting" as only spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities potentially require targets. A permanent doesn't target anything. So, giving shroud to your Glory Seeker after it was enchanted by Indestructibility wouldn't cause the Aura to fall off.
ok, i see. thanks for all your help. so, just for examples sake, what's an example of an aura i could give an empyrial archangel using the ability of sovereigns of lost alara?
ok, i see. thanks for all your help. so, just for examples sake, what's an example of an aura i could give an empyrial archangel using the ability of sovereigns of lost alara?
To clear things up for you sphere this is the regular comparison:
Can't be done: Attach an aura to target creature.
Can be done: Attach an aura to a creature it could enchant.
The 'could' is a basis of saying I'm going to attach this enchant land to a creature I control is not going to happen. If the word target isn't in there then you're safe.
you are targeting the creature with the ability... surely?
Not unless the ability actually uses the word "target" (whether in the Oracle text of the card, or the rules text defined in the Comprehensive Rules). If the word "target" isn't present, then the ability doesn't target. At no point does Sovereigns of Lost Alara's ability use the word target; so neither the Aura card is targeted, nor the creature that Aura would be attached to.
ok, so if it says 'could', it's merely referring to what the enchantment could do, so indestructibility can enchant creatures, even technically a creature with shroud if there was a way around. and in this case, the way around is the ability of sovereigns.
the 'could' is just making sure you don't use aura's on creatures that are meant for lands etc...
thanks very much for clearing this up! I understand now.
one more thing, out of interest -
If i have a creature, a one drop 1/1 for example, I then cast a normal creature aura/enchantment on it like sinister strength. If I then attach lightning grieves or cast some other aura on it to give it shroud, does the order in which i do this mean that sinister strength is still on it, or does sinister strength fall off?
If I then attach lightning grieves or cast some other aura on it to give it shroud, does the order in which i do this mean that sinister strength is still on it, or does sinister strength fall off?
I used a similar example yesterday involving Glory Seeker and Indestructibility; giving shroud to a creature doesn't affect anything already attached to that creature.
Shroud prevents an Aura SPELL from being cast targeting the creature, or prevent an equip ABILITY from being activated targeting the creature. But an Aura permanent or Equipment permanent attached to the creature is unaffected.
Thanks
no aura card could enchant the creature since it has shroud, so surely it doesn't work....?
Shroud does not interfere with whether an Aura could be attached to a creature. It may prevent a spell or ability from targeting a creature, but an Aura in play doesn't target anything. Note: As I said previously, this is unlike protection, because protection has a specific rule that affects the legality of an Aura being attached to a creature. Shroud does not equal protection in that respect.
If i played this combo with friends, they I don't think I would be able to convince them that it's a legal combo, and I can't blame them.
are you saying creatures with shroud can still be targeted with auras? don't aura's count as spells? and creatures with shroud can't be the target of spells or abilities.
where am i going wrong?
There's a different between an Aura spell and an Aura permanent. An Aura SPELL targets. So, when you cast Indestructibility, you have to pick a legal target for the spell. Shroud would prevent something from being a legal target for the spell.
An Aura card, itself, being put onto the battlefield doesn't target anything. It's just put onto the battlefield by the instruction of that spell or ability. You would simply pick a legal object to enchant, and shroud doesn't interfere with that.
Further, once the Aura is on the battlefield, it doesn't target anything. It is simply attached to whatever object it is enchanting. This isn't "targeting" as only spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities potentially require targets. A permanent doesn't target anything. So, giving shroud to your Glory Seeker after it was enchanted by Indestructibility wouldn't cause the Aura to fall off.
Shield of the Oversoul and Indestructibility would both make excellent choices.
are aura's a relatively new thing in magic?
I thought there was basically: equipment, enchantment permanents and creature enchantments.
what exactly is the difference between these and an 'aura'?
sorry to be a pain guys, and thanks very much for all your help!
you are targeting the creature with the ability... surely?
If this is the official rule then I don't think it makes good sense and I think they have undermined the concept of a creature with shroud.
Can't be done: Attach an aura to target creature.
Can be done: Attach an aura to a creature it could enchant.
The 'could' is a basis of saying I'm going to attach this enchant land to a creature I control is not going to happen. If the word target isn't in there then you're safe.
Not unless the ability actually uses the word "target" (whether in the Oracle text of the card, or the rules text defined in the Comprehensive Rules). If the word "target" isn't present, then the ability doesn't target. At no point does Sovereigns of Lost Alara's ability use the word target; so neither the Aura card is targeted, nor the creature that Aura would be attached to.
the 'could' is just making sure you don't use aura's on creatures that are meant for lands etc...
thanks very much for clearing this up! I understand now.
one more thing, out of interest -
If i have a creature, a one drop 1/1 for example, I then cast a normal creature aura/enchantment on it like sinister strength. If I then attach lightning grieves or cast some other aura on it to give it shroud, does the order in which i do this mean that sinister strength is still on it, or does sinister strength fall off?
I used a similar example yesterday involving Glory Seeker and Indestructibility; giving shroud to a creature doesn't affect anything already attached to that creature.
Shroud prevents an Aura SPELL from being cast targeting the creature, or prevent an equip ABILITY from being activated targeting the creature. But an Aura permanent or Equipment permanent attached to the creature is unaffected.