Camouflage

"Creature can only be attacked if it attacked this round."

If creature A attacks creature B, then later in the same round creature A is enchanted with Camouflage, creature B can't attack back.

If this is working as intended, then the card should be reworded. I assume it isn't.

First of all you removed important word in card description:
"Enchanted Creature can only be attacked if it attacked this round."

This is working as intended. "...if it(Enchanted Creature) attacked this round", in your case Enchanted Creature not attacked.

I'm inclined to agree with Psyclone's interpretation of the card text. this boils down to whether the word "it" references "creature" or "enchanted creature". either is possible, but I think it is more natural to read the card as the former. regardless of what I think, the text should probably be clarified to remove ambiguity.

possible replacement: "Enchanted creature can only be attacked if it attacked this round (post-enchantment)."

Sorry, I did leave out the word Enchanted, but that's irrelevant. It seems like a stretch that players should be able to interpret the card in that way. The creature that is enchanted was attacked this round. It doesn't become a new creature when it gets enchanted.

If it is working as intended, then it is unclearly worded. What if the creature already had an enchant on it? It would technically be enchanted already. I'd suggest a simple rewording to clarify it, because several people read it the way I do.

Yeah you are right. I changed the wording.