So, basically, it lets you remove all the opponent's gold if you win uo. With a little bonus if Euron is in your deck.

Yep--with the bonus possibility that you might hurt your opponent if they happen to discard something nice. 

Can't wait to take Tywin's gold and discard his whole family with it!

Stopping Treachery from cancelling my Seastone Chair might be enough to include multiples of this card. Being able to stop other stuff like PttS or Tyrs is an extra bonus. The extra effect is just nice and Euron or even Crone of Vaes Dothrak might get some use out of it.

Cant wait to use this with Crone of Vaes Dothrak and some Dothraki in play.

My issue with this (and has been since it was spoiled) is that there is no rule that says you're allowed to use your opponents gold to pay costs.  All this card says is that your opponents gold must be used, not that you are allowed to do so!

It says may, not must. As a rule on a card overruling a rule in a book, it stands, you are allowed to do it.

It says that in order to play the card, you may only do so with your opponents gold (which means your opponents gold must be used because you can't use your own).  That's not the same thing as overriding the rulebook assertion that you can only pay costs with your own game elements.  

Obviously, it's a Golden Rule situation.  I'd just like cleaner text. 

It would be nice if the text were more clear. I read it with an understanding that there would be a future card that steals gold from an opponent in order to pay for Loot. GoT could certainly benefit from more intuitive card text.

I don't see the issue with how this card is worded. 

I think they are just trying to be consistent with how they use certain phrases in the RRG, which is probably a good thing.

Under Costs on page 5 of the RRG:

- An opponent’s game elements may not be used to pay a cost.

- If a cost requires a game element that is not in play, the player paying the cost may only use game elements that are in his or her out of play areas and/or gold pool to pay the cost.

One small but important change one should make when playing fealty against Greyjoy, is spending gold instead of fealty during marshalling, if the choice arises. Up until now, it seemed better in 100% of the situations to use fealty in marshalling if you could (and have no effects that require kneeling house card), just to be able to bluff more events, and have it for dominance.

How does The Hand's Judgement interact with Loot? Since you are using the opponents gold to pay the cost for the card how would they be able to pay for THJ?

How does The Hand's Judgement interact with Loot? Since you are using the opponents gold to pay the cost for the card how would they be able to pay for THJ?

It would cost your opponent zero gold to play THJ, since Loot's printed cost is X (=0), but they would still lose their gold because costs are paid even if the event is cancelled.

Played this card in a store tournament last weekend. My opponent revealed that for two turns running he was *itching* to play "Put To The Sword", but "Loot" denied his gold both times. Reckon it's a must for straight Greyjoy decks.

Played this card in a store tournament last weekend. My opponent revealed that for two turns running he was *itching* to play "Put To The Sword", but "Loot" denied his gold both times. Reckon it's a must for straight Greyjoy decks.

I can see the point. But I'm wondering how your opponent can be able to play PTTS when you are playing Greyjoy?

He had Tywin and Syrio in play, and I only three or four characters.

I feel like this card could be useful against Martell to cancel any Tears/Vengeance. 

Well, not "canceling," but using up their cash so they can't play it to begin with, sure. Of course, that's only going to work if you are First Player.

True, bad wording on my part. They could still have a Tyrion and get some gold after too. 

Going first should be the goal of Greyjoy anyway though.