MArcomage

I thought I allready created a thread about this but I couldn't find it...
Moonshrine is just way to overpowered.
Seriously... I'd take it only in my deck if I expect myself to have at least equal zero an non zero card amounts on my hand and I decide when I play Moonshrine, so in most cases the effect will be +-0 for me or maybe -2 stock or even +2 or +4 if I play a zero cost deck.

I as the opponent loose about 12-16 stock!!! ... for just 1G.. that's insane.
Especially in hidden games it's almost impossible to prepare for Moonshrine... it feels like a good rare is played frequently against me... It's worse than Prince Of Thieves and that is Rare and has a one round delay. Even the uncommon Thievery is not as good as Moonshrine but 13 times more expensiv.

Please do something.

I agree this card has questionable ballance. Id suggest halfing the effect on the opponent.

Interesting about this card is that there are players who say it's overpowered and there are players who say it's useless. I'll look into it...

I use it frequently but seldomly get +2 or even +4 stock. my opponents on the other hand mostly are left with no resources at all. it sure is useless if you want to build up stock, but as a stock destroying card it is devastating.

Well, with 3 0-cost-cards in the opponent's hand it's already hardly worth playing (especially if Graceful charity is one of them), but situations are more likely to be more extreme.

As most cards, there are counters against it, but...

It might be a bit overpowered, but I just love this card. However, I think there's a crucial part of this card that's being overlooked by those who criticize it.
For it to fit in your deck, I say you need 3+ 0-cost cards. So yes, it's a strong card, but you have to "weaken" your deck for it to be really overpowered.
The only balancing that'd work I guess is to have a cap, but having played it a lot (and loving it), I have to say that there are a lot of occasions when I sit with it in my hand wishing for a Militia or something to get rid of it. It's a very circumstantial card, which is why I think it doesn't need balancing (and if so, like "max 14 stock")

Fair point aswell, thats why I chose the word 'questionable'.

I wouldn't say adding zero cost cards to your deck is 'weakening' it.

If anything, the abundance of 'quick' zero cost cards strengthens your deck, because they basically have no consequence to adding to your deck because you can always just waste them to no effect, e.g. Renewal and to some extent, Halfling Rogue. Since they basically take up no slot, it increases the likelyhood the replacement card will be a card you want, like an uncommon, or one of the common cards you actually want.

This is why the glitch of being able to have multiple deck slots filled by one card was so powerful: you would only get the cards you really wanted.

Therefore, putting a bunch of zero cost cards in your deck isn't a handicap.

I personally don't use Moonshine, and have never seen it used, but it seems like it could be extremely powerful.

You'll need more then just the quick 0-costs to make it work.

That's debatable, seeing as one of my decks generally always has at least a 3-5 of them in hand at all times.
Empirical Evidence > Your spouting off.

My feelings on this card boil down to a dissatisfaction with the lack of means to prevent its play. Being that it can cripple the opponent's resources, boost the player's resources, often do both, and do it all at a paltry cost, it does a lot without a built-in weakness. It's only marginally dependent on other cards since the player can use it effectively even when he has no zero-cost cards on hand or when you have some yourself if the situation calls for it. Additionally, if the opponent sets up for its play by accumulating zero cost cards, playing it doesn't undo his set up. I've seen it used several times in quick sequence to devastating effect.

I don't know if there is one good "fix" for this card, but possible suggestions include reducing or limiting the effect, having to choose one effect or the other, increasing the cost, giving it a high cost that is refunded as part of the effect (so reducing your opponent's stock can delay its use), and/or having zero cost cards in your own hand reduce your opponent's gains as well as reducing your losses.

I'm for increasing the card cost.

Now I notice the people who dislike it tend to not have played it. It's not a good guarantee for success.
I mean, take my "No commons allowed"-deck. I got 12 zero-cost common cards, Dark flame for acceleration for advanced and rares, and Moonshrine. Moonshrine can give me an insane start. Sending opponents resources to 0. However, I have to have 4 0-cost, or I get lowered as well.

When your hand is filled with 4+ 0-cost common cards, you don't have a whole lot of action going on.
Yes 0-cost quicks are awesome and all, but with this deck, Moonshrine doesn't provide anywhere near the same awesomeness Dark flame does.
However, this deck is completely screwed if I don't get any 0-cost commons in the beginning. Starting with 2x Moonshrine and less than 2 0-cost commons ALWAYS means that deck looses.
Moonshrine isn't overpowered, it's just one hell of a gamble!

With 12 0-cost commons you should get on a nice number pretty quick. If that didn't happen, you just forgot to say your prayer to the Card Gods. ;-)

Of course, having luck is tricky.

I do not think that moonshrine is overpower.
There are plenty of cards that makes -1 facilities or -stock that are more annoying.

Progressor: Yes I should, but it's still one hell of a gamble. I rarely get the ideal hand with 7 0-cost commons and moonshrine or dark flame. Like I said, that deck's like betting all your money on one number in roulette. It either goes great, or crap, but it's one hell of a ride ^^

4 0costs makes both cards ok, unless your opponent plays 0cost too.

A little suggestion-make this card ONLY IF NEW. So it could not be uset at the first round. Same goes to the Moon castle

This would waste this card completely, because some decks need to prepare to use this card or have to play a more defensive card before playing this one.

The effect itself is a drawback, because you need the right deck to play this one. Keywordsless and zero cost card really leaks power against other decks which have keywords or card with higher cost, ans they actualy need this cards to have at least some decent support cards. I mean, how can a zero cost deck win if there ist no conscript army, Orde rof the white lotus, moon shrine and plague? Its rather impossible. The same goes with keywordless decks. I'm actually playing a keywordless tower+ deck (ok, i have some keyword cards, but mainly its keywordless) and this type of deck is not that effective than undead or holy decks without its keywordless supporters (and there aren't that much, i think this card is among 2 or 3 the only one). So whats the sense of nerfing a card that is buffing an type of deck which relys on its supporters? It would be like removing Fairy, Zealot or Cleansing for holy decks (ok, they have a lot more supporters, so theyx would not bother that much).

Edit: And the situation you are mentioning comes only up with a chance of 2/15, and even then you need some zero cost or keywordless cards to make it effective, its rather now already very conditional.

it would be nice if there was some kind of a rule to prevent use of certain drastic cards in the 1st 2 turns.