Hearthpwn

why would hired gun never be able to be a good CEO for a company?

because he fires everything

I'm so glad somebody else noticed.

Talk about a nice pack!

Lotta loyalty.

Perhaps he's wondering why someone would shoot a man, before throwing him out of a goblin airship.

1 mana 2/1 taunt

2 mana 3/2 taunt

3 mana 4/3 taunt 

4 mana 5/4 taunt

5 mana 5/4 taunt <--- LUL

... Sludge Belcher Fen Creeper

they printed Evil Heckler because they found or thought that Booty Bay Bodyguard was too weak.

Decent 3 drop for Bolster warrior atleast xD

I'd rather stick with Fierce Monkey

Nowadays I think Hired Gun is better since it can kill Totem Golem

Ironfur Grizzly cries in a corner =(

Nope, Ironfur is a beast so no power creep.

Quote from Marchenoir >>

Quote from ZeroAndKira >>

Nope, Ironfur is a beast so no power creep.

 Except no one plays the grizzly for its beast synergy, making HG an effective powercreep. Grizzly is an arena 3-3 taunt. That's it.

Stop calling every new card that is slightly better than an unplayed card yet still unplayable "powercreep"... Powercreep implies a loss in the balance of the game, and this won't even be played.

it's not about my logic, it's the definition of the word:

[Power creep is] The gradual unbalancing of a game due to successive releases of new content.

—MTG Salvation and Wikipedia

As you said, Ironfur Grizzly is a beast so we can't even say Hired Gun is strictly better.

But even if we could, that would be all. Strictly better yes, but not power creep, because being strictly better yet still too weak to affect the meta isn't power creep. Something that has absolutely no consequences on the meta can't be considered to affect the balance of the game.

This little difference between "Strictly Better" and "Power Creep" is the important part.

Now, I'm not saying there's no power creep in Hearthstone, but if you want to find it, stop looking at mediocre cards. For example, 4 mana 7/7s and 0 mana 5/5 taunts, while not being usually compared to older cards, and avoiding being called "strictly better" as a result, do constitue a power creep, since nothing in the game before had such a power level.

"The gradual unbalancing" as it says means that power creeping is a time consuming prosses, IF they make a +1 stat version of this and repeat... THAT card would be the result of power creeping and it all will steam from this card here. This card being still Battlecry: "gain +5 dust when opening it from a pack" means that it will not be illogical to make a stronger version of it and because generally vanilla minions NEED to be extremely OP to see play means that the power creeped version of this card will still not be playable even if it was a 4/4 taunt or a 4/5 taunt would still see ABSOLUTELY NO PLAY so that would compell them to make power creeped version of it in future expansions... And then you'd basically have a neutral version of the shaman 4-drop 7/7, and then it MIGHT see some play (even now it's only a 1-off in shaman lists and that's not in every iteration of the deck, meaning that the card IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH to be cosistently put in a shaman decklist)

Quote from Gekix >>

because generally vanilla minions NEED to be extremely OP to see play means that the power creeped version of this card will still not be playable

Tottaly agree with you this one instance can not be considered power creep...BUT It's just for punctuality's sake that what you said can be misinterpreted.

The thing is that yugioh power creeps for sales (and it's doing a preety good job sometimes imo), while magic does the exact opposite of that making cards GRADUALLY less and less powerfull, if hearthstone does things the magic way we might be seeing what i described above because magic has always kept a linear progresion in power levels (go see if any extended deck uses more than 10 cards used in standard and u'd b surprised by how weak the game proggreses to be).

So no I don't think that if blizz wants to gradually make cards better I'd be one to stop them, because magic gets worse every year because of having a negative linear progression.