General
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $4
Choose one: Trash this to play a non-Command non-Duration Action from the Supply, leaving it there; or play up to 2 differently named Actions you played this turn before you played this that are still in play.
General with +1 Card token will produce very simple infinite loop with Lurker.
Considering this is a minimum 3-card combo (General\
Lurker\
Teacher (you can get there with
Pathfinding, but then you need more elements to make it do anything) with drawn deck (or
Watchtower) to ensure the +1 Card draws the
Lurked General), I'd hardly call it simple. Once you have
Teacher really, you can put the +1 Card and +1 Action onto the two piles and make
Graverobber and
Rogue work for this loop, too (though in
Graverobber's case you need
Priest,
Tomb,
Training, or
Seaway also).
Corrected regardless. General now trashes the card you target with it in addition to itself, so the described loop would empty the
Lurker pile.
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.
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.
I think that people will still buy Action cards just as much as normal even with Delegate/Falconer in the Kingdom (and my experience playtesting Delegate shows that this is true). A key thing that I don't think you're taking into account is that in order to play an opponent's Action with Delegate, you have to have a Delegate in hand while your opponent also has that Action in hand, whereas to play that same Action card, your opponent just needs to have it in hand. So overall, having the actual Action itself is still better than having a Delegate, and thus having Action cards is still well worth doing.
This is totally fair. I don't think Delegate would push weak Treasure strategies to the front (I'm not going to run
Smithy\BM simply because Delegate is present). It runs the risk of making stronger money strategies more dominant when the failsafe of Delegate makes Delegate such a weak card. A part of the problem I think comes in the players' headspace: Players tend to feel bad when other players piggyback off of them. Based on this assistance aversion, the card would read healthier if copying other players' cards, strong as it may be, was blocking something that was stronger still.
For example, I had initially considered a design as follows:
The player to your left reveals their hand. If they reveal any non-Command, non-Duration Actions, you may play one of them, leaving it there. Otherwise, you may play a non-Command, non-Duration Action from the Supply, leaving it there.
*TODO: Buy restriction to reduce opening with this*
So that players would want to have Actions to stop it from being its best version. It wouldn't even need such a stark contrast between its stronger and weaker versions: If Delegate missing was a
Laboratory then it would be totally reasonable in the opening and players would feel good when they "block" it with a
<$4-cost Action. It is probably fine regardless. Don't mind me.
Assembly
Types: Action, Command
Cost: $5
You may play a non-Command Action card from your hand. Then, if you did, play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to the cost of that Action card, leaving it there.
Does this really need the Command limitation for the play from hand? Assembly->Assembly doesn't sound crazy. In most cases, this is +2 Actions attached to a mildly worse
Band of Misfits. If you play a $5 card from your hand with Assembly, your Assembly is a
Band of Misfits played without spending an +action. If you only have $4 Actions to play with it, you can only
Band of Misfits $3 Actions.
Lieutenant
Types: Action, Commander
Cost: $6
Choose a non-Command Action card in the Supply costing up to $4. Play it twice, leaving it there.
I think Lieutenant is significantly stronger than
Captain, even ignoring that it can play Duration cards. We can argue regarding the strength of 2 plays now versus 1 play at the start of your turn, but
Captain misses the shuffle where Lieutenant doesn't.