I have never seen such a broken card before. 4 mana. Most of the time you do not need CTHUN at all with this tentacle.
This is beyond broken!
2 Likes
Black knight, spell breakers, big game hunter, and a lot more.
2 Likes
Need to run BGH. It was ran in every tournament and legend deck during the times all these sets were active, Eyestalk just gives another reason to do so.
But yes, the card is insane.
1 Like
This card is pretty awesome, but itâs only broken because it has no efficient Neutral counter (or efficient counter in each and all classes) for it being such an efficient Neutral card. Good take. 
1 Like
Eh? In what world? In the one of the Jade Rogue or Discard Warlock? I donât think so.
Eh?
BGH and TBK have already been mentioned here.
Well, I mean like, having an understated card just to counter an overstated card is the definition of imbalance, is it not?
(You have to have that exact card when they have their exact card while also playing towards your win condition to potentially win the game.)
Nah you need Câthun. Its like the nuke with a mini gun.
Thatâs the problem with the so-called âhate cardsâ in general â well, one of the problems, but theyâve been doing it for years anyway.
Having something like a BGH or equivalent seems more or less necessary in this âmetaâ anyway, so thisâd be just another target for it.
The ânecessaryâ actions a player should have while playing a game is to play out of their own volition to try to have fun, isnât it? Doesnât this make the ânecessaryâ actions to craft, and/or be forced to play, and/or follow a trend of counter play?
âNecessaryâ â for a decent win rate, that is.
Thatâs the big design problem of such games, where youâve gotta be a âmetagame hussyâ in order to be successful, by the way.
If you want to play for fun you can play whatever cards you like however you want. That does not mean you are entitled to win. If you want to WIN you play the meta. Sometimes you cannot have both without one giving a little to the other. Thus you need to compromise a bit in deck build to prepare for the meta.
(Okay, play me as the entitled karen card, or just have the trap set just in case. 
)
Iâm just saying that the polarized intentions of counter play are so dominant of the alpha and beta type outlook on masculinity that it becomes nothing but toxicity. Of Course, play to win for the meta. Play whatâs necessary to win for the meta. Compromise. Play against the tide to ride over it. But when it comes to counter play because of overpowered cards, the overpowered cards are just that = OVERPOWERED. Do you really think there is suppose to be such little diversity that we just resort to only a few top tier âmetaâ decks? The point is the trends are set and they are enforced. The creative integrity of making your own creation to the top is not seen in Hearthstone anymore. Itâs a thing of the past. Like someone else said, itâs not so much about making your deck anymore, itâs about making the plays with your deck made for you.
Black knight is a must have against it and warrior.
Playing the meta is as old as the CCG. Yes, you very much can make your own decks and play them in the meta and contrary to popular belief make legend. I do it all the time and so do MANY other players on this forum. That doesnât mean i wonât put certain cars in my deck knowing they will help me with a majority of the net decks. In fact i would be foolish not to exploit those players.
I do not think you are being a âKarenâ. I was merely pointing out that you must accept that some cards need to be played if you want to âwin moreâ. If you want to play what you want by all means do so. Just be realistic and understand playing with lower probability winning cards will lead to more loses.
1 Like
Your word is a point of why this game was never good considering:
Gadgetzan was made purely for exploits. So was Cult Master, Starving Buzzard, to a lesser extent - Mana Wyrm, Undertaker. Why are there some cards that exploit to fundamentally break the game in one way or another, but some cards that make no impact nor have any value in the game whatsoever and may never have value nor impact years from now? Why would this game even be a CCG if you collect cards that have no value nor impact at all, ever? The CCG aspect could use some work. Otherwise, itâs like we are just collecting grains of sand at a beach or something. 
Thanks.
BGH is core and legacy at the same time
because of this you can use the core one on your twist deck no need to craft
You misunderstand the context of exploit in the post. When i say exploit i mean that the net decks take a copy of a deck online and known card for card. This gives you the flexibility when a meta is made up of a large portion of those types of decks to exploit a weakness in the deck and beat it.
An example is currently that we have multiple greedy control decks that are top tier. They will regularly Mulligan for their best late game card in deck. This has led to BDK coming back into the meta because they can play multiple cards that hunt those card sin hand to remove them, Dirty Rat, Theotar and Patchwerk. Warlock has a great trump to greed like this in Immolation so you see it in Warlock decks or at least a copy in ETC.
Iâm not sure what to tell you about the CCG structure as it has been an outdated thing for a while but still finds life to be relevant. The LCG design is much more consumer friendly.
1 Like
Iâm not sure what you mean by BDK, nor LCG, nor ETC; nor do I know what Theotar or Immolation are, but donât you think I grasped the general context of âexploitâ for a broader definition and understanding than just your context for the sake of betterment?
Do you really think that to
is a good way for everyone to play who wants to win (continually) in this game? Seems like grasping for straws or something like that.
Youâve pinpointed one of the issues with balancing the meta, which Iâve already mentioned above: from the very beginning, instead of fixing âbrokenâ cards, archetypes, mechanics, interactions and so on, theyâd âreleaseâ these so-called âhate cardsâ, supposed to counter them specifically. Iâve always been against this design approach, to be honest.
Nothing personal, but thatâs what I referred to as being a âmetagame hussyâ above, or, more precisely, bad game design in which being one is the winning strategy.
An extreme example of that would be a game of rock, paper and scissors. You know somehow (with some information from outside of the game, which is literally the definition of the âmetagameâ, or shortened to âmetaâ, as opposed to what some people assume) that âeveryoneâ is playing rock, so you go with paper instead. In time, the popularity of paper rises, so some âcleverâ players switch to scissors. One more iteration, and âeveryoneâ is playing rock once again. There are people who fancy themselves as experts, âmeta analystsâ, as theyâd put it, writing âmeta reviewsâ, as if it were some kind of science â and theyâve even invented a term for whatâs described here: âmeta cyclesâ.
The sad truth hidden behind these big words, however, is that the gameplay itself is more or less meaningless, as are a playerâs skill or decisions in the game, and the most âsuccessfulâ one is the most flexible â or lucky â âmeta-horeâ who happens to ride this tide just ahead of yet another wave crest, so to speak. This is indicative of a bad design â just bad and unfun, even if itâs perfectly balanced, as ârock-paper-scissorsâ are, mind you, which isnât even always the case.
The opposite pole would be chess. Sure, you can use some metagame information, e.g. what kinds of positions or openings your opponent prefers or plays best, to prepare for a match, but generally, the outcome of any game is mostly determined but what each of the two players does at the board and their decisions during the game, not by what the bulk of other players prefer to do. I think this could be achieved by good design, the aforementioned âhate cardsâ being a typical counterexample of it, with a decent level of strategic depth and diversity of playable archetypes, decks, cards and so on. The closer you are to this, the more youâll realise that every competitive deck that youâd face could be an âoff-metaâ deck, at least ideally.
Sure, itâs easier to just cobble up a few obvious deck archetypes for a rock-paper-scissors-like scheme (insert your âaggroâ, âcontrolâ, âcomboâ or âmidrangeâ instead, and here you are) for a semblance of a âdiverse and balanced metaâ, but itâs less fun, although itâs probably cheaper to make and more profitable to sell.
PS One more thing: instead of refining a game, like chess has been, resulting in a masterpice of game design, much appreciated over centuries, itâs apparently more advantageous for them to appease the false idol of 'nEw CoNtEnTâ 
and keep selling their junk at regular intervals. See also this on the subject (yeah, repeating myself again), including why this fetish is not always even good for a game, Chess 960 being a prime example.
Despite being such a masterpiece, chess is so hard to monetise, yes, thereâs that.
1 Like
Nah, BGH saw no play since it was nerfed in Old Gods/when formats were introduced. Staple inclusion before that though. You are clearly misremembering.