<p>The Indestructibility will go to it's owner's graveyard.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>303.4d An Aura can’t enchant itself. If this occurs somehow, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard. An Aura that’s also a creature can’t enchant anything. If this occurs somehow, the Aura becomes unattached, then is put into its owner’s graveyard.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-31T04:05:13.890Z
I don't think is correct. The first sentence of that rule seems to say that an Aura can't legally enchant it, so you would simply be unable to move it in the first place.
murgatroid99
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-31T03:23:53.610Z
2016-08-31T03:23:53.610Z
xornob
<p>You cannot do as you described, there is a ruling on Simic Guildmage (emphasis mine):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>For the second ability, only the Aura is targeted. When the ability resolves, you choose a permanent to move the Aura onto. It can’t be the permanent the Aura is already attached to, it must be controlled by the player who controls the permanent the Aura is attached to, and <strong>it must be able to be enchanted by the Aura</strong>. (It doesn’t matter who controls the Aura or who controls Simic Guildmage.) If no such permanent exists, the Aura doesn’t move.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Since you cannot attach an Aura to itself due to rule 303.4d you cannot choose to attach Indestructibility to itself:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>303.4d An Aura can’t enchant itself. If this occurs somehow, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard. An Aura that’s also a creature can’t enchant anything. If this occurs somehow, the Aura becomes unattached, then is put into its owner’s graveyard.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Even if you could make that choice, the Aura would not move due to rule 303.4j:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>303.4j If an effect attempts to attach an Aura on the battlefield to an object or player it can’t legally enchant, the Aura doesn’t move.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-04T16:50:46.977Z
What if you had 2 Indestructibilities? Could you attach them in a 69 way to make a (rather useless) ball of indestructibility?
Tony
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-04T20:11:32.503Z
I don't see any reason why not. When the rule says "can't enchant itself", "itself" refers to the single aura object on the battlefield, not any aura of the same name.
Fr33dan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-31T04:07:42.610Z
2016-08-31T04:07:42.610Z
Fr33dan
<p>Let's say I have an <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bIndestructibility%5d">Indestructibility</a> attached to a land I control.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Enchanted permanent has indestructible.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I try to use the second ability of <a class="mtg-autocard" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bSimic%20Guildmage%5d">Simic Guildmage</a> to attatch the Indestructibility to itself.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Attach target Aura enchanting a permanent to another permanent with the same controller.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What happens?</p>

<magic-the-gathering>
Can an Aura be attached to itself?
xornob
# Can an Aura be attached to itself?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-08-31)

Let's say I have an [Indestructibility](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bIndestructibility%5d) attached to a land I control.

> Enchanted permanent has indestructible.

I try to use the second ability of [Simic Guildmage](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=%2b%5bSimic%20Guildmage%5d) to attatch the Indestructibility to itself.

> Attach target Aura enchanting a permanent to another permanent with the same controller.

What happens?

**Tags:** magic-the-gathering


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-08-31. Score: 9 | Accepted answer

You cannot do as you described, there is a ruling on Simic Guildmage (emphasis mine):

> For the second ability, only the Aura is targeted. When the ability resolves, you choose a permanent to move the Aura onto. It can’t be the permanent the Aura is already attached to, it must be controlled by the player who controls the permanent the Aura is attached to, and **it must be able to be enchanted by the Aura**. (It doesn’t matter who controls the Aura or who controls Simic Guildmage.) If no such permanent exists, the Aura doesn’t move.

Since you cannot attach an Aura to itself due to rule 303.4d you cannot choose to attach Indestructibility to itself:

> 303.4d An Aura can’t enchant itself. If this occurs somehow, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard. An Aura that’s also a creature can’t enchant anything. If this occurs somehow, the Aura becomes unattached, then is put into its owner’s graveyard.

Even if you could make that choice, the Aura would not move due to rule 303.4j:

> 303.4j If an effect attempts to attach an Aura on the battlefield to an object or player it can’t legally enchant, the Aura doesn’t move.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: What if you had 2 Indestructibilities? Could you attach them in a 69 way to make a (rather useless) ball of indestructibility?  
> **username_2**: I don't see any reason why not. When the rule says "can't enchant itself", "itself" refers to the single aura object on the battlefield, not any aura of the same name.  

---

### Answer by username_0 on 2016-08-31. Score: -2

The Indestructibility will go to it's owner's graveyard.

> 303.4d An Aura can’t enchant itself. If this occurs somehow, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard. An Aura that’s also a creature can’t enchant anything. If this occurs somehow, the Aura becomes unattached, then is put into its owner’s graveyard.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I don't think is correct. The first sentence of that rule seems to say that an Aura can't legally enchant it, so you would simply be unable to move it in the first place.  

---

