General
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $4
Choose one: Trash this and a non-Command, non-Duration Action from the Supply to play that card, leaving it in the trash; or replay up to 2 differently named Actions you played this turn before you played this that are still in play.
One-shot anything, or double-up on the cards you already played (in the way
Scepter does, but in the Action phase). One-shot
Forge is probably silly, but everyone can open with it. Can't immediately think of another Action that would be broken as a one-shot in the opening.
Cascading Generals are noted: General 2 can play General 1 and another card, then General 1 plays two Actions you played before it. Is that too strong do you suppose? It seems immediately to me that a deck that can consistently rely on that deserves it and it would be really fun regardless of strength, but perhaps I'm underestimating how quickly it will build up and overestimating how much fun it would be. It's not like a General-centric strategy wouldn't involve other Actions.
History:
Trashes the card it plays in the Supply. It's more thematically violent and reduces the chance of infinites.
Falconer
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $3
The player to your left reveals a non-Command Action card from their hand (or reveals they can't). Choose one: +1 Card and +1 Action; or play the revealed card, leaving it there.
Delegate
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $3
Each other player reveals their hand. Play a revealed non-Command, non-Duration Action, leaving it there. If you couldn't, +2 Cards.
The old "play Actions from another player's hand" trick doesn't work very well because you stop if from working by not buying Actions, so the question is how you general combat a largely Treasure-centered strategy in the design of the card.
4est's Falconer gets around it by making it a cantrip instead of the worst Action in the player to your left's hand. I think the limitation is huge. If you play Falconer terminally they can reveal a terminal card the you can't play. If you play Falconer non-terminally, they reveal a minimally useful non-terminal, again making Falconer of only marginal use. I think a strong money-centric Strategy will make Falconer a waste of time.
Gubump's Delegate instead turns into a
Moat instead of the best Action in any other player's hand. Hitting anyone's any card means that this scales poorly into multiplayer. The save of
Moat is probably even worse than Falconer's cantrip, so I would likely still run good money against Delegate.
I recommend the catch for not having an Action to play be better than the Action play, honestly. Me revealing an Action to your Command-card should make your Command card worse.
Scholasticus
Types: Action, Command, Reserve
Cost: $4
Choose one: Place this and an Action card from your hand onto your Tavern mat; or play an Action card that is on your Tavern mat, leaving it there.
You may call this when you play another Scholasticus.
You ought to put a "non-Reserve non-Command" clause on both the "Action card" phrases, or the loop majiponi presents exists.
The fact that the call is only to bring back Scholasticus is weird, on top of the pseudo-trashing being really slow. Way slower than
Necromancer. I'd rather the calling it be what plays a Tavern Action and then the playing always puts it on your Tavern mat. It would make it much faster to both trash and play a card (after the first one).
Charity
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $4
Trash a card from your hand. Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $3 more than the trashed card, leaving it there.
I love trash-for-benefits. This can trash Estates to play $5 cards which is nice. Its ability to trash Coppers is strongly dependent on the quality of $3 Actions that appear: Is that limitation intentional?