Call of Cthulhu LCG

I was skeptical about this idea, supposing that Khopesh is not destroyed when its bearer dies, but merely discarded.

Checking the core rules, though, I see: Cards that are attached to another card (most often support cards) are immediately destroyed (put into the discard pile) if the card they are attached to leaves play for any reason.

I don't know what it is exactly, but I love the artwork for this card.  I think the yellow border of the card around the cloudless blue sky in the background.  Then how the 5 men visually connect the cool blue above to the harsh dirt below.  And at first, I thought these men were standing in a semi-circle, but it looks like the three middle men are basically standing in a line, and they're watching the two men in the foreground.  Maybe the fellow on the far left is pleading for mercy from the fellow on the far right, who is clearly in charge.

Just particularly well-executed art for the Sons of Carcosa.  It looks like something out of a dream.

I guess Mnomquah's Night ability would even protect him from passive conspiracy effects such as from The Door That Will Not Close.  He could commit to that story, win you 1 or 2 success tokens, and then uncommit as normal.  No questions asked.  Meanwhile, your opponent's only chance to stop him is he's willing to go to said conspiracy himself, which will get him stuck there in the process.  And with Mnomquah's Response ability, your opponent's hopes of winning TDTWNC will really be hurting as he's constantly getting set back.  Pretty cool!

Sorry, anytime you are told to "choose" something, you have to be able to in order to use the effect.

Well it goes from insane to ready, instantly. It also shuts down perma-lock from insanity-causing Lunatics on people whose effects you want to use later in the turn (Peter Clover, ST Carl Sanford).

It is suuuuper niche though

What am I missing that this card requires Agency x2 Steadfast? Doesn't the play restriction in the effect make the Steadfast redundant? Is there a universe where you could have two blue resources on a single domain but not have two blue resources across all your domains?

Also, I love how some of the reviews for this card give 5 stars and some give 1. Talk about love it or hate it.

Can you play events that have no legal target? Like use a shotgun blast if there are no characters in play?

If so the steadfast is relevant, because it stops it from being a free event in some sort of theoretical future combo that just wants to play events.

I don't understand this card.  Rather than restore The Supplicant and then restore Character 2, I could just restore Character 2.  And the fact that Character 2 gets Willpower means if that character is a Lunatic, Benjamin Herriot, or a similar character that actually wants to go insane, too bad.  If The Supplicant restored, READIED, and gave Willpower to Character 2 then I could see the benefit of this card.  Plus, since Character 2 isn't readied, what's the point of temporary Willpower?

If anyone cares to help me out, I'd love to understand how The Supplicant is supposed to be helpful.

I'd totally build a deck around this card. Probably Agency/Miskatonic to get the card draws that would offset the extra plays. Then, look out!

Edited to add: Maybe Agency/Syndicate to get Naomi with a City Map and abuse Tactics.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe Naomi triggering a Tactic event card counts as "playing" an event card for the purposes of readying the Claret Knight.  If anyone knows of any rule that states otherwise, please enlighten me.  Thanks.

My initial reading had me assuming it could be on for one player and not the other, but now I am leaning firmly the other way.

Where it says "Ignore this effect if a player has ..." the use of "a" rather than "the" seems to mean the effect gets turned off if any player meets the condition, rather than just the player a specific bad consequence was about to apply to.

It is sad, this reading makes the card be even more underpowered.

On further reflection, I think for the thing to be effective in any significant number of cases, it should be read as the Hastur character turning off the effect for the player(s) with the committed Hastur character(s) or "no characters committed." (I would have read the latter anyway, even if not explicit: When I'm committed and you're not, I "win" the struggles, but you don't "lose" them, because you're not participating. Consider a three-player game for why this logic can be more generally important.)

I'd like to know too. It seems genuinely ambiguous to me.

Maybe my favorite ST character. Everything about her is right.