So... does this work if they have no character defending?  Like if I attack with this on Asha and she stealth's by their defenders?

Um... if they have no character defending, how will you choose a "defending character" to kill?

Specifically, "defending character" is defined in the RRG as "a character participating in the current challenge on the defending side." A defending character is not simply any character controlled by the defending player.

So... does this work if they have no character defending?  Like if I attack with this on Asha and she stealth's by their defenders?

It does absolutely nothing if you're in a challenge with no defenders.
Of course, unopposed usually means drawing cards via Great Kraken, getting to burn crucial locations or attachments (milk) with We Do Not Sow, and even that throwing axe Asha standing up again after her attack, doing a 2nd attack with a different icon, and if that's unopposed, standing again for free... I've even had Little Bird on her too to win 3 challenges without kneeling her and without anyone blocking because they don't want the axe to give me yet another kill.

The benefit of throwing axe over Stark's +1 kill claim event is, you can get Axes on the board in setup phase (better starting boards and draw +1 extra card instead of events being ineligible for setup)
You can also use Sea Tower (-1 cost to marshal) on Throwing Axe to play it for free, but reducer locations don't reduce the cost of events (events are not marshalled.)
If that Throwing Axe character is killed it goes right back to hand so it's not any more vulnerable in core. (No one should be Confiscating your 1g axe or they're giving up their +3gold they could have gotten from Noble Cause, plus making themselves defenseless against your future Milk of the Poppy)

Gold reduction events (Like Supporting the Faith where you lose all gold when challenge phase starts) shuts down paid combat events, but was too late to shut down your Throwing Axes put on during Marshal.
Future anti-gold cards (like Greyjoy's Loot which removes all opponent's gold after you win a challenge) will also empty money needed for Put to the Sword / Winter is Coming type kills but not stop Throwing Axe kills.

Very nice write-up here, Vanzig.

If you kill an opponent's single defender with this card, is that challenge then considered unopposed? I'm thinking the challenge is still considered opposed, as calculating strength for the winner has already been determined. My counter argument to that is that no defenders are left in the challenge when you award power for unopposed. In accordance with D-U-C-K

The definition of an unopposed challenge is one in which the defender counts 0 total challenge STR. So whether or not the challenge is opposed is set when you determine the winner - even though the bonus power isn't actually received until later on down the line.

Look at it this way, if you use Like Warm Rain to kill the only attacker, it doesn't change the fact that you lost the challenge and are still on the hook for claim, right? Same thing here. Killing the only defender doesn't change the fact that the challenge was opposed and you are still not eligible for the bonus power.

Makes perfect sense.  Thanks ktom

In accordance with D-U-C-K

I am glad I came here and got things cleared up. The first time I came across this card I ruled that it killed any character controlled by the defending player, despite my reservations (5 gold swing is huge) as it did not specifically say a participating character. So I am glad that I am wrong, but not so happy about the confusing text.

I am glad I came here and got things cleared up. The first time I came across this card I ruled that it killed any character controlled by the defending player, despite my reservations (5 gold swing is huge) as it did not specifically say a participating character. So I am glad that I am wrong, but not so happy about the confusing text.

I am glad I came here and got things cleared up. 

Would you say your conscience is clear?

compare this with ice you'll know it cant be as good

Does this reaction stack similar to Deadly in the first edition?  ie, If it's used after winning a military challenge, can the defending player choose the targeted character to fulfill their claim as well?

No, the Axe's reaction happens at Step 4.2.2, when the winner is declared.  Now you can sacrifice the Axe and kill a participating character. Then in 4.2.3 you will get Unopposed if applicable, and in 4.2.4 they will have to choose someone for claim.

If you chose someone who has a duplicate on them with the Axe, they could discard the duplicate to save them, and then pick the remaining for claim in 4.2.4.

Thank you!

Does this reaction stack similar to Deadly in the first edition?  ie, If it's used after winning a military challenge, can the defending player choose the targeted character to fulfill their claim as well?

there's no more moribund, so you have to resolve each DUCK step entirely.

Now you can sacrifice the Axe and kill a participating character. Then in 4.2.3 you will get Unopposed if applicable, and in 4.2.4 they will have to choose someone for claim.

If you use Throwing Axe to kill a defender as a reaction to winning the challenge in 4.2.2, you will not get Unopposed in 4.2.3. Whether or not the challenge is unopposed is determined when the winner/loser of the challenge is determined (by the defending player counting 0 total STR). Killing the only defender after that point with Throwing Axe does not change the determination that the challenge was opposed any more than Like Warm Rain killing the only attacker would stop claim from happening. By 4.2.3; the check for unopposed will have already been made; you just collect the power then.

Does this reaction stack similar to Deadly in the first edition?  ie, If it's used after winning a military challenge, can the defending player choose the targeted character to fulfill their claim as well?

Interestingly enough, Throwing Axe works the OPPOSITE of the way Deadly and claim interactions did for most of 1.0. Since (MIL) claim came first, you could kill the only defending character for claim, thereby having no legal target (i.e., a participating defender) to kill for Deadly. In 2.0, since Throwing Axe comes before claim, it would let you kill the only defending character for its effect, forcing the defending player to kill a non-participating character to satisfy (MIL) claim.

Yes. Each one independently (first one axe, resolve it to completion, then the other), but there's no reason why you could not.

It does absolutely nothing if you're in a challenge with no defenders.
Of course, unopposed usually means drawing cards via Great Kraken, getting to burn crucial locations or attachments (milk) with We Do Not Sow, and even that throwing axe Asha standing up again after her attack, doing a 2nd attack with a different icon, and if that's unopposed, standing again for free... I've even had Little Bird on her too to win 3 challenges without kneeling her and without anyone blocking because they don't want the axe to give me yet another kill.

 

The benefit of throwing axe over Stark's +1 kill claim event is, you can get Axes on the board in setup phase (better starting boards and draw +1 extra card instead of events being ineligible for setup)
You can also use Sea Tower (-1 cost to marshal) on Throwing Axe to play it for free, but reducer locations don't reduce the cost of events (events are not marshalled.)
If that Throwing Axe character is killed it goes right back to hand so it's not any more vulnerable in core. (No one should be Confiscating your 1g axe or they're giving up their +3gold they could have gotten from Noble Cause, plus making themselves defenseless against your future Milk of the Poppy)

Gold reduction events (Like Supporting the Faith where you lose all gold when challenge phase starts) shuts down paid combat events, but was too late to shut down your Throwing Axes put on during Marshal.
Future anti-gold cards (like Greyjoy's Loot which removes all opponent's gold after you win a challenge) will also empty money needed for Put to the Sword / Winter is Coming type kills but not stop Throwing Axe kills.

I had cut the Axe from my GJ/Sun deck, but your words are making me reconsider it. My main problem was finding viable targets for him as I run few cheap Ironborn characters, and when I was able to marshal it the other player just prefered to go unopposed instead of defending. Forcing unopposed is not bad, but I can do that with other cards like the ships and Kraken Grasp, while making my opponent kneel characters.

Maybe I could find some spots by switching my 2-3 drops to include Lordsport Shipwright and Dournish Paramour to force at least kills on INT powerful characters like Tywin, Dany, Jamie, Euron, etc. Having already Syrio on my deck could also force some kills on MIL characters too if he is on the board with Dournish Paramour and some MIL Ironborn.

Who knows, it might be worth a shot.

With the Net's introduction and taking into account how tight the room for attachments is, I doubt we'll see many Axes in the future. Superior in setup than the Net, but lacking in the control aspect. The Net is the better card of the two.

I been also thinking about the Net, but so far I haven't felt it's need. It's a great attachment, but in my GJ/Martell build I usually want my enemies to defend so I can remove their strenght to make it unnoposed (and prevent them to attack me back, as I want first player allways). Stealth + icon removal is enough so far to make me able to choose who I want to defend and who doesn't.

Maybe if stealth gets even more common, the net will be a good addition, but right now, I'm not so sure. I like running no attachments in my GJ/Sun deck because it makes all the attachment hate around right now useless (or counter productive).

The Net would surely come in handy in mirror matches and vs Lannister who have the ability to cancel the Longship's effect.