<p><strong>Your opponent controls their creature, you control your Aura</strong>. If you cast <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=River%27s%20Rebuke">River&#39;s Rebuke</a>, their creature will leave the play field, and your Aura will go to the graveyard as a state-based effect:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>704.5m If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In most respects, <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Singing%20Bell%20Strike">Singing Bell Strike</a> isn't that much different than, say, <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Pacifism">Pacifism</a>. If you played the Aura, you control it, no matter who controls the <em>enchanted creature</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>303.4e An Aura’s controller is separate from the enchanted object’s controller or the enchanted player; the two need not be the same. If an Aura enchants an object, changing control of the object doesn’t change control of the Aura, and vice versa.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The rule then goes on to distinguish between <em>two types of abilities</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities. However, if the Aura grants an ability to the enchanted object (with “gains” or “has”), the enchanted object’s controller is the only one who can activate that ability.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So activated abilities <em>on the Aura itself</em> (like the activated abilities on <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Keldon%20Mantle">Keldon Mantle</a>) can only be activated by the <em>Aura's controller</em>.</p>
<p>Other Auras, however, <em>give an activated ability to the enchanted creature</em>. If you want, think of this as <em>adding text to the rules box of the creature</em>:</p>
<ul>
<li><a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Singing%20Bell%20Strike">Singing Bell Strike</a> gives <code>6: Untap this creature</code> to the enchanted creature</li>
<li><a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Burning%20Anger">Burning Anger</a> gives <code>[T] This creature deals damage equal to its power to any target.</code> to the enchanted creature</li>
</ul>
<p>Check out the difference in wording between <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Dragon%20Breath">Dragon Breath</a> vs <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Dragon%20Mantle">Dragon Mantle</a>:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/jjjWC.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/jjjWC.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a> <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Szbxz.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Szbxz.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>If you play either on your <em>own</em> creature, then their &quot;pump&quot; <code>+1/+0</code> abilities work (pretty much) the same. But if you play them on your <em>opponent's</em> creature (or, more likely, if you play it on your own creature, then your opponent <em>gains control</em> of your creature with the enchantment already attached), they work differently. For Dragon Breath, only the controller of the <em>Aura</em> can pay to pump up the creature. For Dragon Mantle, only the controller of the <em>creature</em> can pay to pump it up.</p>
<p>I even found a single card <em>with an example of each</em>. Check out <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ocular%20Halo">Ocular Halo</a>:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/gG66w.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/gG66w.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>If your Ocular Halo ends up on your opponent's creature, then only <em>they</em> can tap the creature to draw a card, and only <em>you</em> can give it vigilance.</p>
<p>To emphasize something I alluded to above: it's unlikely you would want to <em>play</em> some of these Auras on your opponent's creatures (because you don't want to help them), this situation can also arise when you've already enchanted your <em>own</em> creature, and your opponent <em>takes control</em> of the creature (with <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Control%20Magic">Control Magic</a> or something similar). Even though they've taken control of the <em>creature</em>, they have <em>not</em> taken control of the Aura attached to it, so this distinction is important.</p>
<p>So per your original question, this ability discussion doesn't change the controller of the Aura or the creature, so if all your opponent's permanents leave play, your aura will be left enchanting nothing, and will go to the graveyard.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:16:02.283Z
"However, if the Aura grants an ability to the enchanted object (with “gains” or “has”), the enchanted object’s controller is the only one who can activate that ability."  Is this supposed to be part of the rules quote?
Taemyr
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:19:28.800Z
@Taemyr Yes, that's part of the rules, the following sentence about `6: Untap this creature` is my comment. If the creature is controlled by Bob, and Sally plays the Aura, the aura gives the *creature* (and therefore Bob) an activated ability to untap. I've edited to clarify.
BradC
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T15:05:22.800Z
2021-07-22T19:14:04.160Z
2021-07-22T19:14:04.160Z
BradC
<p><strong>River's Rebuke on your opponent does not return your Singing Bell Strike to anyone's hand. It will go to your graveyard as a state-based action.</strong></p>

<p>State-based actions are checks that the game performs automatically whenever a player would gain priority. One of those checks is whether an aura is attached to a legal target. If it isn't, it goes to its owner's graveyard.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>704.5m If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T15:05:45.050Z
2019-12-20T15:05:45.050Z
Hackworth
<p>You would still control the aura, even though it was cast on the opponent's creature and confers an ability to that creature.  Therefore, when River's Rebuke is cast, targeting your opponent, Singing Bell Strike will no longer have a valid target and will therefore go to your graveyard.  (303.4c)</p>

<p>Your stated rule, 303.4e, seems consistent with this.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T15:10:39.810Z
Although Aura spells are targeted when cast; it doesn't "have a target" once it is on the battlefield; not being attached is what causes it to go to the graveyard.
GendoIkari
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:05:18.663Z
I'm only saying that a line of 303.4e - " Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities" - in this situation does not apply. I don't think it's any small stuff, especially for beginners.
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:41:39.163Z
@Massimiliano Is your real question here about how Keldon Mantle is different from Singing Bell Strike? As in why the controller of the aura can activate the activated abilities on Keldon Mantle, but not the activated ability mentioned on Singing Bell Strike?
GendoIkari
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-21T09:42:00.200Z
Well, yes Gendolkari, yours could be an example. this question is not equal to others which it has been associated with. As an evidence,everyone can see the lots of comments and answers coming before the closing. I really disagree the duplication, and the closing of this question.
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-23T15:58:02.830Z
This question wants to be an exemplification of the line of rule 303.4e,in which it states:-"However, if the Aura grants an ability to the enchanted object (with “gains” or “has”), the enchanted object’s controller is the only one who can activate that ability". Well, here is a situation in which it is possible to find "has" in the card text. I think it was important to make at least one example of this kind of situations and cards, without incurring in a duplication of question ... it is slightly different, but I admit that the difference from the question to which we refer is really little.
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T15:06:23.667Z
2019-12-20T15:06:23.667Z
loungehead
<p><a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bSinging%20Bell%20Strike%5d">Singing Bell Strike</a> is, in my opinion, a really peculiar Aura, from the point of view of ruling's exceptions.  </p>

<p>While the controller of the Aura remains the one who cast it, it is also true that the ability granted to the enchanted creature can be activated by the creature's controller only.  </p>

<p>What happens, then, if after casting Singing Bell on an opponent's creature, I cast <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bRiver%27s%5d%2b%5bRebuke%5d">River&#39;s Rebuke</a>, choosing the opponent controlling a creature enchanted by Singing Bell</p>

<ol>
<li>Singing Bell Strike returns to its owner's hand</li>
<li>Singing Bell Strike goes to the graveyard</li>
</ol>

<p>Although i think the correct answer is 2,I question it just the same because it is not easy to entangle like others. This question is different from others, in the way that a beginner may do not understand that paying the activation cost of an Aura placed on an opponent's creature does not mean that the Aura's controller is the opponent itself.
 There is a point in the rule 303.4e :<br>
-"Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities" -<br>
that can be read in ways that lead to bad interpretations of this situation, and this in my opinion should be clarified.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T15:02:07.900Z
well, you can see here, very clearly, that rule 303.4e is not perfecly followed...
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T15:13:54.483Z
303.4e means that abilities on the enchantment can only be activated by the controller (e.g. Bound by Moonsilver).  Singing Bell Strike gives the ability to the creature itself. And only the creature's controller can activate it.
JonTheMon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T15:36:26.463Z
Re "*it is also true that the ability granted to the enchanted creature can be activated by the creature's controller only.*", Indeed. Only a permanent's controller can activate its abilities (unless the ability says otherwise). [CR 602.2]
ikegami
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T15:56:51.730Z
In what way is this question not addressed by https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/45857/who-controls-negative-enchantments?
murgatroid99
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T15:59:19.450Z
In the way that a beginner may do not understand that paying the activation cost of an Aura placed on an opponent's creature does not mean that the Aura's controller is the opponent itself.
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:05:44.773Z
Nobody has suggested that a beginner should always be able to recognize that another question in fact addresses their situation (especially with different card names), but in this case the addition of the activation cost is *not* relevant for why the aura goes to the graveyard. If this question is marked as a duplicate, don't take it as a personal affront; this question will still be here, pointing to the other. Also, don't use comments to talk about meta-issues; use the chat room or the meta board.
BradC
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:08:02.887Z
I did not know other ways to talk about this meta-issues, at least until now. Secondly, those other ways are not ever available.
ManoFromBerlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:36:30.967Z
Although it's unclear from the title, this question is definitely not a duplicate of the question about who controls the enchantment. This question is about the interaction of what happens when the permanent that an aura is enchanting leaves the battlefield.
GendoIkari
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:38:01.763Z
That part is addressed by this question: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/22479/what-happens-to-enchantments-that-are-attached-to-creatures-when-the-creatures-a
murgatroid99
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:39:48.057Z
@murgatroid99 Agreed; I feel like this question could be marked as a duplicate of that one actually. Although really the issue is that the title and the body of the question are asking 2 completely different questions.
GendoIkari
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:41:33.267Z
The fact is that the two options presented correspond to "the opponent controls the aura" and "I control the aura". So the question is essentially about the controller.
murgatroid99
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:42:09.457Z
Re "*Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities*", The Aura has no activated abilities.
ikegami
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:43:05.527Z
@murgatroid99 Based on the OP's comments on another answer, I actually think the question they were trying to ask could be about why the controller of the enchanted creature, rather than the controller of Singing Bell Strike, is the one who can activate the activated ability.
GendoIkari
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:44:43.913Z
We should keep in mind that there is a language barrier here; while the OP's English is far better than my any-language-but-English; they are not quite fully fluent.
GendoIkari
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:56:57.537Z
I've edited my answer to more fully address the "abilities granted by the aura" portion of the question.
BradC
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T16:57:44.460Z
I think if the body of the question were edited to more closely match the subject; this would not be a duplicate of either of the linked questions. I'm not sure what River's Rebuke actually has to do with the question here. If the question is about why the Aura's controller does not activate the activated ability mentioned on the aura, then that is a separate and good question. It seems to be what the subject asks; but not the body.
GendoIkari
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-20T17:11:27.690Z
@GendoIkari I think the unasked question is, "does my enchantment come back to my hand", based on confusion about the "enchanted creature has" activated abilities. To which the answer is, "no"
BradC
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-23T16:40:16.200Z
Gendolkari, when you're saying :-"If the question is about why the Aura's controller does not activate the activated ability mentioned on the aura, then that is a separate and good question. It seems to be what the subject asks"...than YES. This IS precisely what I mean...But it's true, I should have specified this more clearly, although I believe that after editing the question, it should be more clear.
ManoFromBerlin
<magic-the-gathering>
Q:Who is to activate Singing Bell Strike's ability? Who controls this Aura?
ManoFromBerlin
# Q:Who is to activate Singing Bell Strike's ability? Who controls this Aura?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-12-20)

[Singing Bell Strike](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bSinging%20Bell%20Strike%5d) is, in my opinion, a really peculiar Aura, from the point of view of ruling's exceptions.

While the controller of the Aura remains the one who cast it, it is also true that the ability granted to the enchanted creature can be activated by the creature's controller only.

What happens, then, if after casting Singing Bell on an opponent's creature, I cast [River's Rebuke](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bRiver%27s%5d%2b%5bRebuke%5d), choosing the opponent controlling a creature enchanted by Singing Bell

1. Singing Bell Strike returns to its owner's hand
2. Singing Bell Strike goes to the graveyard

Although i think the correct answer is 2,I question it just the same because it is not easy to entangle like others. This question is different from others, in the way that a beginner may do not understand that paying the activation cost of an Aura placed on an opponent's creature does not mean that the Aura's controller is the opponent itself.
There is a point in the rule 303.4e :  
-"Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities" -  
that can be read in ways that lead to bad interpretations of this situation, and this in my opinion should be clarified.

**Tags:** magic-the-gathering

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: well, you can see here, very clearly, that rule 303.4e is not perfecly followed...  
> **username_1**: 303.4e means that abilities on the enchantment can only be activated by the controller (e.g. Bound by Moonsilver).  Singing Bell Strike gives the ability to the creature itself. And only the creature's controller can activate it.  
> **username_2**: Re "*it is also true that the ability granted to the enchanted creature can be activated by the creature's controller only.*", Indeed. Only a permanent's controller can activate its abilities (unless the ability says otherwise). [CR 602.2]  
> **username_3**: In what way is this question not addressed by https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/45857/who-controls-negative-enchantments?  
> **username_0**: In the way that a beginner may do not understand that paying the activation cost of an Aura placed on an opponent's creature does not mean that the Aura's controller is the opponent itself.  
> **username_4**: Nobody has suggested that a beginner should always be able to recognize that another question in fact addresses their situation (especially with different card names), but in this case the addition of the activation cost is *not* relevant for why the aura goes to the graveyard. If this question is marked as a duplicate, don't take it as a personal affront; this question will still be here, pointing to the other. Also, don't use comments to talk about meta-issues; use the chat room or the meta board.  
> **username_0**: I did not know other ways to talk about this meta-issues, at least until now. Secondly, those other ways are not ever available.  
> **username_5**: Although it's unclear from the title, this question is definitely not a duplicate of the question about who controls the enchantment. This question is about the interaction of what happens when the permanent that an aura is enchanting leaves the battlefield.  
> **username_3**: That part is addressed by this question: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/22479/what-happens-to-enchantments-that-are-attached-to-creatures-when-the-creatures-a  
> **username_5**: @username_3 Agreed; I feel like this question could be marked as a duplicate of that one actually. Although really the issue is that the title and the body of the question are asking 2 completely different questions.  
> **username_3**: The fact is that the two options presented correspond to "the opponent controls the aura" and "I control the aura". So the question is essentially about the controller.  
> **username_2**: Re "*Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities*", The Aura has no activated abilities.  
> **username_5**: @username_3 Based on the OP's comments on another answer, I actually think the question they were trying to ask could be about why the controller of the enchanted creature, rather than the controller of Singing Bell Strike, is the one who can activate the activated ability.  
> **username_5**: We should keep in mind that there is a language barrier here; while the OP's English is far better than my any-language-but-English; they are not quite fully fluent.  
> **username_4**: I've edited my answer to more fully address the "abilities granted by the aura" portion of the question.  
> **username_5**: I think if the body of the question were edited to more closely match the subject; this would not be a duplicate of either of the linked questions. I'm not sure what River's Rebuke actually has to do with the question here. If the question is about why the Aura's controller does not activate the activated ability mentioned on the aura, then that is a separate and good question. It seems to be what the subject asks; but not the body.  
> **username_4**: @username_5 I think the unasked question is, "does my enchantment come back to my hand", based on confusion about the "enchanted creature has" activated abilities. To which the answer is, "no"  
> **username_0**: Gendolkari, when you're saying :-"If the question is about why the Aura's controller does not activate the activated ability mentioned on the aura, then that is a separate and good question. It seems to be what the subject asks"...than YES. This IS precisely what I mean...But it's true, I should have specified this more clearly, although I believe that after editing the question, it should be more clear.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-12-20. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

**Your opponent controls their creature, you control your Aura**. If you cast [River's Rebuke](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=River%27s%20Rebuke), their creature will leave the play field, and your Aura will go to the graveyard as a state-based effect:

> 704.5m If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.

In most respects, [Singing Bell Strike](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Singing%20Bell%20Strike) isn't that much different than, say, [Pacifism](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Pacifism). If you played the Aura, you control it, no matter who controls the *enchanted creature*:

> 303.4e An Aura’s controller is separate from the enchanted object’s controller or the enchanted player; the two need not be the same. If an Aura enchants an object, changing control of the object doesn’t change control of the Aura, and vice versa.

The rule then goes on to distinguish between *two types of abilities*:

> Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities. However, if the Aura grants an ability to the enchanted object (with “gains” or “has”), the enchanted object’s controller is the only one who can activate that ability.

So activated abilities *on the Aura itself* (like the activated abilities on [Keldon Mantle](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Keldon%20Mantle)) can only be activated by the *Aura's controller*.

Other Auras, however, *give an activated ability to the enchanted creature*. If you want, think of this as *adding text to the rules box of the creature*:

* [Singing Bell Strike](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Singing%20Bell%20Strike) gives `6: Untap this creature` to the enchanted creature
* [Burning Anger](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Burning%20Anger) gives `[T] This creature deals damage equal to its power to any target.` to the enchanted creature

Check out the difference in wording between [Dragon Breath](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Dragon%20Breath) vs [Dragon Mantle](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Dragon%20Mantle):

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/jjjWC.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/jjjWC.png) [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/Szbxz.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/Szbxz.jpg)

If you play either on your *own* creature, then their "pump" `+1/+0` abilities work (pretty much) the same. But if you play them on your *opponent's* creature (or, more likely, if you play it on your own creature, then your opponent *gains control* of your creature with the enchantment already attached), they work differently. For Dragon Breath, only the controller of the *Aura* can pay to pump up the creature. For Dragon Mantle, only the controller of the *creature* can pay to pump it up.

I even found a single card *with an example of each*. Check out [Ocular Halo](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ocular%20Halo):

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/gG66w.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/gG66w.jpg)

If your Ocular Halo ends up on your opponent's creature, then only *they* can tap the creature to draw a card, and only *you* can give it vigilance.

To emphasize something I alluded to above: it's unlikely you would want to *play* some of these Auras on your opponent's creatures (because you don't want to help them), this situation can also arise when you've already enchanted your *own* creature, and your opponent *takes control* of the creature (with [Control Magic](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Control%20Magic) or something similar). Even though they've taken control of the *creature*, they have *not* taken control of the Aura attached to it, so this distinction is important.

So per your original question, this ability discussion doesn't change the controller of the Aura or the creature, so if all your opponent's permanents leave play, your aura will be left enchanting nothing, and will go to the graveyard.

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: "However, if the Aura grants an ability to the enchanted object (with “gains” or “has”), the enchanted object’s controller is the only one who can activate that ability."  Is this supposed to be part of the rules quote?  
> **username_4**: @username_6 Yes, that's part of the rules, the following sentence about `6: Untap this creature` is my comment. If the creature is controlled by Bob, and Sally plays the Aura, the aura gives the *creature* (and therefore Bob) an activated ability to untap. I've edited to clarify.  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2019-12-20. Score: 2

**River's Rebuke on your opponent does not return your Singing Bell Strike to anyone's hand. It will go to your graveyard as a state-based action.**

State-based actions are checks that the game performs automatically whenever a player would gain priority. One of those checks is whether an aura is attached to a legal target. If it isn't, it goes to its owner's graveyard.

> 704.5m If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.


---

### Answer by username_8 on 2019-12-20. Score: 0

You would still control the aura, even though it was cast on the opponent's creature and confers an ability to that creature. Therefore, when River's Rebuke is cast, targeting your opponent, Singing Bell Strike will no longer have a valid target and will therefore go to your graveyard. (303.4c)

Your stated rule, 303.4e, seems consistent with this.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Although Aura spells are targeted when cast; it doesn't "have a target" once it is on the battlefield; not being attached is what causes it to go to the graveyard.  
> **username_0**: I'm only saying that a line of 303.4e - " Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities" - in this situation does not apply. I don't think it's any small stuff, especially for beginners.  
> **username_5**: @Massimiliano Is your real question here about how Keldon Mantle is different from Singing Bell Strike? As in why the controller of the aura can activate the activated abilities on Keldon Mantle, but not the activated ability mentioned on Singing Bell Strike?  
> **username_0**: Well, yes Gendolkari, yours could be an example. this question is not equal to others which it has been associated with. As an evidence,everyone can see the lots of comments and answers coming before the closing. I really disagree the duplication, and the closing of this question.  
> **username_0**: This question wants to be an exemplification of the line of rule 303.4e,in which it states:-"However, if the Aura grants an ability to the enchanted object (with “gains” or “has”), the enchanted object’s controller is the only one who can activate that ability". Well, here is a situation in which it is possible to find "has" in the card text. I think it was important to make at least one example of this kind of situations and cards, without incurring in a duplication of question ... it is slightly different, but I admit that the difference from the question to which we refer is really little.  

---

