MArcomage

the turn number is a value on which concepts have access to.

We could suggest the line:
"If current turn not equal to 1 or 2:"

This would solve the problem

On the other side that loss is easily counterable, and you have to be real lucky to inflict +7/-7 in the first turn.

While you're unlikely to gain +6 playing this on turn 1 (+7 is impossible since the card itself gives you a -1 from the potential +7), inflicting -7 or even -8 is actually rather common.

1B CC? OP

Ayrton wrote:
1B CC? OP

I don't understand your arguments for your claim that Moon shrine is OP.

Just keep Judge in your deck and you and your enemy should be square

Graceful charity is better as a counter to Moon shrine IMO. Lowering opponent's stock won't cripple him too much if he has zero-cost deck, but you'll most likely need those resources to play your non-zero-cost cards. And Graceful charity completely negates Moon shrine effect to your stock.

The 1 blue casting cost seems arbitrary and very low -- too low.

I believe that the cost does not matter. If you got a zero cost deck, then you just don't really care for how much the card costs. It will reduce the stock anyway. And when you think a 1 gem card wich decreases the enemy stock by up to 8, look at drought, which gives a 100% chance to decrease it by 8 for zero cost AND as a common card (ok, it has a drawback of -8 stock, but since you play a zero cost deck, why would you bother?). I rather believe that drought is better in some zero cost deck than moon shrine, at least in plague decks.

The only thing why i believe that the player says that this card is overpowered in zero cost decks is that it had no drawback fro them. But since zero cost decks are a slow type of deck, since they need to rely on finishers, accumulation or a lockdown, i believe that this card is not overpowered at all, because 1. the enemy has most time faster decks (holy, undead, burning, frenzy), or 2. he has also zero cost support cards (gracefull charity, milita etc.). When point 2 is fullfilled, then this card has a more mediocre effect, maybe increasing your stock by 4, while decreasing your enemys stock by around 4, what is low for an uncommon.

I believe that the only point why this card is op is that it is just frustrating when you plaay against someone with this card. But then we would need to nerf plague, drought and other also...

Lord_Earthfire wrote:
I believe that the cost does not matter. If you got a zero cost deck, then you just don't really care for how much the card costs. It will reduce the stock anyway. And when you think a 1 gem card wich decreases the enemy stock by up to 8, look at drought, which gives a 100% chance to decrease it by 8 for zero cost AND as a common card (ok, it has a drawback of -8 stock, but since you play a zero cost deck, why would you bother?). I rather believe that drought is better in some zero cost deck than moon shrine, at least in plague decks.

The only thing why i believe that the player says that this card is overpowered in zero cost decks is that it had no drawback fro them. But since zero cost decks are a slow type of deck, since they need to rely on finishers, accumulation or a lockdown, i believe that this card is not overpowered at all, because 1. the enemy has most time faster decks (holy, undead, burning, frenzy), or 2. he has also zero cost support cards (gracefull charity, milita etc.). When point 2 is fullfilled, then this card has a more mediocre effect, maybe increasing your stock by 4, while decreasing your enemys stock by around 4, what is low for an uncommon.

I believe that the only point why this card is op is that it is just frustrating when you plaay against someone with this card. But then we would need to nerf plague, drought and other also...

Downgrade cards that are overpowered, not because they are frustrating. Moon shrine (or moon castle) could easily cost more (as their low casting cost is wholly arbitrary) or simply only deduct stock based on the number of KEYWORD CARDs instead of the actual number of DIFFERENT KEYWORDS.