I hadn't seen that earlier thread. I see why AJD would use a reaction, but it rubs me the wrong way that his card reacts to a game state (having 0 actions remaining) rather than reacting to a discrete event.
For instance, suppose I just got hit by a militia. My hand consists of Hidden Village, Golem, and Gold. I play Golem, and reveal a Courtyard and Harvest. I play the Courtyard, draw some cards, top-deck my Gold. Now I need to play Harvest, but man I want that Gold, so I reveal my Hidden Village to draw that Gold first, and then I play Harvest.
Being able to draw a card at any moment, so long as a persistent condition (like 0 actions) is met just seems a bit out there. It could certainly be fun, but I feel like it's an unintended consequence here.
---
I like Zem's Lost City idea. It reacts to an action being played. We've seen Donald's ruling that if you trash a Cultist and draw a Market Square from the resulting card draw, then you may reveal and discard your Market Square for a Gold. I wonder if one should similarly be able to play a Smithy and then reveal a Lost City which is drawn from it. My guess is no, since when a Minion is played you need to choose the react immediately -- you don't get to wait and see whether your opponent takes the money or forces a discard. This would leave the Lost City a bit shy of being a village which costs no actions since it could be drawn dead. But then, I suppose that's why it's a treasure worth $2.
I'm not such a fan of putting the card face down into play. I guess it's not being played (just as a Chancellor doesn't discards, but rather puts into the discard pile). But being in play is meaningful. For instance, it would count towards Horn of Plenty and Bank. It would be trashed if a Mint were purchased, and top-decked if a Mandarin were purchased. Again, these are cool wacky side effects, but why not just reveal and discard the Lost City for the +1 Card, +1 Action?
