Yes, I could just word it as

> Regenerate target creature you control. You may have it fight another target creature.

However, the whole hullabaloo with regeneration shields is super counter-intuitive to new players, so I prefer a template that avoids regeneration weirdness.

Though both of these abilities are perfectly within Green's slice of the pie, putting them together on one card certainly violates the spirit of the pie. See Alex's comments on Kamahl, Beastmaster.

I disagree. The problem with deathtouch + fight is that it allows green to destroy any creature, regardless of size. Your creature's stats are made irrelevant by deathtouch; even a 1/1 Squirrel can kill anything. Yes it will die, but the spell pretty much just reads "Sacrifice a creature. Destroy target creature," which is black, not green.

With this card, it's different. Your creature still has to be big enough to kill the other, which fits green's essence. The secondary regeneration effect just guarantees you won't lose your dude.

Mmmm. I can see both sides, but I think I'm with Berf on this one. This only destroys a creature if you have something bigger.

Suggested templating:

> Regenerate target creature you control. That creature fights target creature you don't control.

Or perhaps

> Target creature you control fights target creature you don't control. Regenerate the creature you control.

The first suggestion might confuse players who're very new or have very old rules knowledge ("why does it regenerate my creature before it fights?"). The second suggestion might confuse players with a little bit more rules knowledge ("I thought regeneration shields needed to exist before the creature dies!"). Either works (because the creature will actually only die from damage as an SBA, after the whole spell has resolved), but...

The awkward regeneration rules strike again. What about indestructible?

> Target creature you control gains indestructible until end of turn. It fights another target creature.

You could do. That makes it a little bit better.

The current wording does actually work, because of the farcical way that "regenerate" is actually two different verbs with two different meanings. This is "regenerate" in the 701.12b sense. Which is a sense that newer players don't realise is any different to the more normal 701.12a sense, but that doesn't matter.

What matters is that this current wording ("They fight. If blah would die this turn, regenerate it.") makes reasonable sense to very new players, and to players with a bit more rules knowledge, and to players with guru-level rules knowledge. So it's probably actually best left as it is.