Ah, I see - I misunderstood, I thought you were referring to my first paragraph describing the graveyard rider WOTC puts on large minions they specifically don’t want to be part of resurrection play patterns, and the example I gave was Emrakul.
Hogaak is literally the exact opposite of the example I gave from WOTC, can’t even be played from your hand and is made to be played from graveyard… I’m not aware of any minions in Hearthstone with a similar design, and obviously you can’t put an anti-resurrection rider on a card like Hogaak. The point I made was that anti-resurrection riders are the tool WOTC uses to put much-needed boundaries on resurrection mechanics in MTG because they have a history of being toxic, but can also be pretty fun when implemented with care. As a matter of fact, Hogaak is banned in modern while Emrakul remains legal to this day, largely as a product of that rider, and a lot of cards on the modern ban list are directly related to graveyard/resurrection mechanics because it is a very tricky design space existing outside the game’s usual power structures.
But we can agree to disagree on the systemic nature of the problem in Hearthstone, that’s basically what I meant when I said I would still be happy with the changes you suggested even though they seemed to be coming from a different place in terms of goals (killing the deck vs making its’ mechanics more fun - not like I’m playing resurrection priest so makes no difference to me lol).
My perspective, however, has always been that the resurrection mechanics in Hearthstone really don’t function as or feel like resurrection to me - they feel more like reproduction, and are much more boring as a result. All you need to do is get one minion out one time then you can make as many copies of it as you want, forever. The end result is a play pattern that maximizes redundancy/reliability by playing the smallest pool of minions possible then repeatedly tutoring/reproducing them (while actively punishing putting anything else onto the board). So I do think it is a systemic issue related to the quality of the play patterns in question, but again we can agree to disagree on that no problem.
RE: acute concerns with specific cards, in combination with there being no limits whatsoever on the minions that are viable in this strategy this particular function of res mechanics in Hearthstone (the reproduction aspect) really does constrain future development in addition to encouraging what I perceive to be some really boring play patterns. I brought up Emrakul because it is a damn cool card that is literally only able to exist because of that rider. And the fact that they put that rider on it meant they didn’t need to constantly look over their shoulder at legacy, vintage etc when designing it to be fun in standard. And it ended up defining an iconic deck in Modern that had to put a lot of work into hardcasting it at 15 mana, or cheating it onto the board (in a way very similar to shadow essence, actually) but for diminished value. The deck is certainly fun/powerful enough without having the ability to manufacture Emrakuls at will or cheat surprise extra turns onto the board, and if your opponent deals with the first one you need to do something difficult again to get a second - which is basically what people mean when they talk about dynamic gameplay in CCGs.
While the monsters people res in Hearthstone aren’t at that power level yet, resurrection in Hearthstone is random, MTG is a different/better game with sideboards etc, I do think it is worth considering the way they manage these exact issues in their game. It really doesn’t seem like that big deal to put a “can’t be resurrected or copied” keyword on cards like obsidian statue, scrapyard colossus etc as they rotate out of standard, and this could in fact be a reasonable compromise between the systemic and acute camps, hence it being my first suggestion… there are plenty of other minions to use out there that don’t just immediately grind the game to a halt once your opponent plays shadow essence on turn 6, and actually do interesting proactive stuff instead… I guess I would rather have the designers make the cards they want and slap a rider on the stuff that has a lot of potential or proves to be problematic in wild.