CotW Contest #390: I can't decide! You pick for me

We're going for the "Making friends" approach to opponent decision making as opposed to "suffering buffet."

---

Vivienne, Divine Scholar

Legendary Creature - Angel Advisor (2/7)

Flying, Vigilance

At the beginning of each player’s upkeep, that player may draw a card. If an opponent does, until their next upkeep, that player can’t attack your or planeswalkers you control and can’t target you or permanents you control with spells or abilities.

---

Group Hug with an enforced Peace Treaty.

---

Does this count?

You gotta un-italicize those words if you want the game to be able to see them.

Thanks! It's like a free card clinic. I've altered my entry.

sdfkjgh is this a ygo-card? Cause that wall of text may be far to much to fit on a single card…

I want to do Brainstorm instead of my old entry:

My entry depicting The Fire Gang/The Fireys, from Labyrinth(1986) as a creature version of Browbeat, similar to the Pondering Mage in stats, but with the etb being Browbeat instead of Ponder.

sade612: I don't think adding a punisher effect makes Brainstorm in-color for Black, its card advantage/manipulation typically costs it a bit more than "the opportunity for failure." Which, granted, I think most opponents would take because Bump in the Night is substantially less likely to kill you long-term.

Honestly I really liked your first entry, I just thought there was a bit going on that was unnecessary for the design. The effect's perfectly fine in mono-Black, and the un-kicked version is so bad given a Gift's Ungiven style card is, by design, not going to be able to actually disrupt your opponent very well. Plus making it Grixis+ exclusive for Commanders is rough. I'd personally recommend just going back and cleaning it up a bit. Drop the kicker, clean up the formatting (for Gifts Ungiven effects, you have to have the opponent choose the things that won't be used for the spell. Otherwise you could fail-search only two cards and remove their ability to choose at all.)

Entry. I tryed to make each side = good, but your opponenets will allways choose what is best for them.

I don't really see any point to using the Saga frame.  What can it do that isn't done by a card like Abiding Grace?

Design notes follow. I get a bit rambly, but I like seeing people's thought process, so I figured I would record mine on such a contentious design:
I took everyone's comments under advisement. Ultimately, it came down to needing a nerf of some kind. I could make it more expensive, make it more vulnerable to removal, maybe even bump it up to rare. Instead, I decided to give it a drawback that leans into the original idea behind the name. For those who are unaware, a "white elephant" is a gift that is intended to be an inconvenience upon the receiver. I kept the value it had as a powerful and cheap creature, but at best you only get to attack with it every other turn in a 1v1 game, and it's gonna be attacking you back. In multiplayer games, this design allows for multiple layers of diplomacy, which I think is pretty fun for Rakdos. I also reworded the ability a bit, because there are a few ways (at least one, off the top of my head) for players to gain hexproof, and I wanted to circumvent that a bit, as well as making a bit of a clearer distinction about who is being referred to in the rest of the ability's text. I gave a bit of thought to how this might fall apart if you had multiple combat phases, but honestly I'm not aware enough of how that would work to even begin to design around it, so I'm kinda just assuming that either the first choice would last for the whole turn, or the last choice would be the only one that actually matters. Is the drawback too big? Should I still have made it a 4/3? Could I have just bumped it to rare and called it a day? Maybe, but I love how much discussion this design elicited, and I'm actually pretty happy with my final product. (Still not the card I was designing originally, though. That one's just too wordy, and probably just needs workshopped, honestly.)