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.
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.
I think you're misunderstanding the card, in the context of Dominion up to $X includes $X. So if you play a $5 with Assembly you can play any card in the Supply costing $5 or less, including another copy of the card you played.
Quite right, I don't misunderstand the concept of "up to": I misread the card (funnily enough considering I transcribed it correctly). I stand by the non-Command from hand being unnecessary (from Supply is needed), especially because Assembly->Assembly would need to have a third Action in hand to be able to chain. It just seems like a feel-bad mechanism that I wouldn't want to have on a $5
Throne Room variant.
Zealot
Types: Action, Duration, Attack, Command
Cost: $4
At the start of your next turn, +1 Card, +1 Action, and +$1. Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays a card on their turn that would be unaffected by a Zealot, they ignore its effect and may play a cheaper non-Command card from the Supply sharing a type with it.
This card might be too brutal against cheap Action cards, but it looks neat otherwise. My brain broke trying understand the part in italics though. What would cause something to be "affected" by Zealot besides being hit by the Attack?
Oh, the intent of that wording was to make the attack stack (so if you play two Zealots it downgrades your opponent's first two cards), primarily to give it a sufficiently different design space from Enchantress.
This is not preferable from a design sense. A Zealot chain can shut out the game (which would be a huge first-player advantage and could be exacerbated in multiplayer (though they have to get through the other players' Zealots first)), especially because it hits any kind of card you play, even cancelling Coppers altogether. I think it is sufficiently different than
Enchantress regardless.
Enchantress is an independently strong card that increases the value of low-cost Actions, while Zealot will be much more Kingdom-dependent in reducing the value of low-cost cards. It giving +1 Action next turn might be trouble, though, as players might buy it just for the actions.
The big rules problem this has is how it is supposed to interact with
Enchantress when I play an Action while under both effects.
I'd guess I get +1 Card and +1 Action and then also play a cheaper non-Command card sharing a type with it (
Enchantress nullifies the effects of the Action and gives me the cantrip bonus, and then Zealot steps in and nullifies the nothing that the card did and tells me to play a cheaper non-Command card in the Supply, or the other way around because I choose the order): An anti-synergy.