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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
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?
no aura card could enchant the creature since it has shroud, so surely it doesn't work....?