In Cuba Libre by GMT Games, Rule 2.3.6 (Launder) has the following clause that allows another player to Launder Cash in another's favor:

... Alternatively, a different Faction may remove its own Cash marker to enable the 1st or 2nd Eligible Faction to execute such a free Operation. ...

Suppose another player wants to Launder their Cash to give me a free LimOp for a particular purpose. Which of the following happens:

a) The other player spends the Cash, and I choose any LimOp I desire as if I had Laundered the Cash myself, allowing me to trick the other player into financing a different operation than they intended


b) I choose the operation, and the other players can choose whether or not to Launder for it, enforcing honesty?


It's not explicit in the rules, but the way Operations are payed for is that the Faction chooses an Operation, pays the cost in resources and the follows the Operation procedure. So the Faction has the right to do an Op by the sequence of play order and the paying of the Op is done during the Operation, after the Operation type has been declared.

On the other hand, to Launder a Limited Op, the Faction needs to Launder the cash to be granted the free Lim Op. If there is no Launder there is no free Op. So it seems that if another Faction wants to Launder cash they should first spend the stash and then the active Faction could get a free Op... which could be anything (except Construct 3.3.5).

Also, the rules for Negotiation 1.5.1 are clear in that there are no binding agreements in this game, so there is that.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.