Okey i love the flavor, two guards guarding a gate. The beast arrives shredding them to pieces, the first one doesnt notice him and can't warn the other, who is being attacked.

It's obvious what you want; but the "And then fight" is really hard to get the timing on.

Also a fun and odd card - you would just as often want to force an opponents attacking creature to do this; but that would be a more variation.

It's not quite clear from your current wording how you want the timing to work here. I'd suggest one of these two templates:

> Target creature an opponent controls blocks target creature you control if able this turn. The creature you control fights another target creature [controlled by the same opponent.]

Or more likely to be what you want:

> Target creature an opponent controls blocks target creature you control if able this turn. When that creature blocks this turn, the creature you control fights another target creature [controlled by the same opponent].

Ok, I guess it wasn't obvious what you wanted :)

Let's see if we can find a simpler wording. Three "target creature" is at least two too many.

Hang on, does it matter that it be a fight? Why not just: "Two target creatures an opponent controls must block target creature you control this turn, if able"

You lose this card determining the order of the fighting - but you get to choose that as part of combat anyway.

You lose "Ok, I'll block it with X AND Y, and then you'll be dead, so you can't fight Z,, hah!" but, well, is that really something you want to preserve?
It's already quite a weak Lure variant.

I want the fight to be in there, might rethink the wording. But it's the flavour of a predator on killing spree. And i wanted it to be wierd, challange magics wording and style.

...Aiming to "challenge Magic's wording" is a very dangerous thing. What you might not realise is that Magic's wording is extremely carefully chosen, and something the templating and rules team have put vast amounts of time into.

There are major problems that can happen if something's not templated (worded) correctly. Some designers might think that their cards will work fine even if their wording's wrong. But there are so many corner cases possible with Magic's vast history of cards. What happens if something gets bounced in response? Or if something becomes a creature, stops being a creature, changes controller, gains new abilities, changes name? What happens if the damage is redirected, prevented, turned into lifegain or cards drawn or tokens instead? All of these are possible with existing black-bordered Magic cards.

Now I'm not saying you have to template cards precisely. This is an amateur design site; we're happy to give people the benefit of the doubt and to read cards the way they're meant to work. And I'm also not saying you have to have 100% rules knowledge to design cards - that's an impossible bar to set.

But I would say that the rules and guidelines in Magic are generally there for very good reasons. And the old creative maxim is true when it says you need to understand why the box is there before you can think outside it; practice doing things within the form before trying to break the mould.

As an alternative, how about simply

> Target creature you control fights another target creature, and then fights a third target creature.

Thats not what i meant, i meant i love the new kind of cards they make that combine different things. Not to change the overall language. Like this card i like the way it says. And just making it Block me and Fight me wouldn't make it as appealing to me.