Board Game Arena

I just had a game where another player offered me a trade, I accepted, we traded, and then they immediately used a Knight on me and stole the resource back.

The sequence was:

They offered ore for wood.
I accepted, and we traded.
They then used a Knight on me and stole the ore back.

At that point, I only had two resources, so it felt like they were deliberately trying to steal back the resource they had just traded to me.

What do people think about this? To me, it feels like poor sportsmanship, almost like they cheated the trade. I’m curious to hear how others would view it.

No different than making a lopsided trade them using monopoly to just get back what you traded away.

You've got to be kidding...

yellowmcflurry wrote: ↑08 July 2026, 10:16 I just had a game where another player offered me a trade, I accepted, we traded, and then they immediately used a Knight on me and stole the resource back.
...
What do people think about this? To me, it feels like poor sportsmanship, almost like they cheated the trade. I’m curious to hear how others would view it.

Perfectly legitimate tactic. You do realise that you're competing to become Lord of Catan, not to develop the island into a moderately-developed anarcho-syndicalist commune where you take turns acting as a sort of executive officer for the week?

Paddles wrote: ↑08 July 2026, 13:53

yellowmcflurry wrote: ↑08 July 2026, 10:16 I just had a game where another player offered me a trade, I accepted, we traded, and then they immediately used a Knight on me and stole the resource back.
...
What do people think about this? To me, it feels like poor sportsmanship, almost like they cheated the trade. I’m curious to hear how others would view it.

Perfectly legitimate tactic. You do realise that you're competing to become Lord of Catan, not to develop the island into a moderately-developed anarcho-syndicalist commune where you take turns acting as a sort of executive officer for the week?

Not sure what to say apart from lmao

yellowmcflurry wrote: ↑08 July 2026, 10:16 I just had a game where another player offered me a trade, I accepted, we traded, and then they immediately used a Knight on me and stole the resource back.

The sequence was:

They offered ore for wood.
I accepted, and we traded.
They then used a Knight on me and stole the ore back.

At that point, I only had two resources, so it felt like they were deliberately trying to steal back the resource they had just traded to me.

What do people think about this? To me, it feels like poor sportsmanship, almost like they cheated the trade. I’m curious to hear how others would view it.

I cannot understand your resoning at all. If the player just stole from you (no trade before) and took your wood it would have been exactly the same outcome. This would have been fine for you?

Furthermore, if the ore would have been so important to the other player why did he trade it away first? Most probably he wanted to steal your other ressource and was very unhappy to get the ore back.

Very likely he wanted your two ressources for one ore. If he stole first you would probably not have traded with him directly afterwards. Thus he traded first.

Since the player was unlucky to get his ore back the result was a simple steal of a wood.

euklid314 wrote: ↑09 July 2026, 06:27

yellowmcflurry wrote: ↑08 July 2026, 10:16 I just had a game where another player offered me a trade, I accepted, we traded, and then they immediately used a Knight on me and stole the resource back.

The sequence was:

They offered ore for wood.
I accepted, and we traded.
They then used a Knight on me and stole the ore back.

At that point, I only had two resources, so it felt like they were deliberately trying to steal back the resource they had just traded to me.

What do people think about this? To me, it feels like poor sportsmanship, almost like they cheated the trade. I’m curious to hear how others would view it.

I cannot understand your resoning at all. If the player just stole from you (no trade before) and took your wood it would have been exactly the same outcome. This would have been fine for you?

Furthermore, if the ore would have been so important to the other player why did he trade it away first? Most probably he wanted to steal your other ressource and was very unhappy to get the ore back.

Very likely he wanted your two ressources for one ore. If he stole first you would probably not have traded with him directly afterwards. Thus he traded first.

Since the player was unlucky to get his ore back the result was a simple steal of a wood.

I get what you’re saying, and mechanically I agree the final outcome is similar to a normal Knight steal.

My issue was more with the sequence and intent. They initiated a trade, gave me ore, and then immediately played a Knight targeting me, which made it feel like the trade was being used as setup for the steal rather than a normal good-faith exchange.

I also understand that the steal is random, so they may not have intended to take the ore back specifically. That’s fair. But from the receiving end, it still felt pretty bad because the move happened immediately after the trade.

So I’m not saying it was illegal or technically cheating. I’m saying it felt unsporting in the moment, especially because trading usually carries some expectation that both sides are engaging in s fair manner.

yellowmcflurry wrote: ↑09 July 2026, 18:05 My issue was more with the sequence and intent. They initiated a trade, gave me ore, and then immediately played a Knight targeting me, which made it feel like the trade was being used as setup for the steal rather than a normal good-faith exchange.

So I’m not saying it was illegal or technically cheating. I’m saying it felt unsporting in the moment, especially because trading usually carries some expectation that both sides are engaging in s fair manner.

Just wait until someone does a bunch of trades in a single turn, with you, with others handing out a resource he seems to have a lot of, giving you good deals... And then uses a monopoly to take it all back.

We had a bunch of 'achievement' cards we used to pass around our regular group in the office. A ploy like the monopoly one would earn you the d**k move card. And if you didn't win the game there and then, you'd really struggle to get any trades for the rest of the game.

You don't have to like it, but it is a good and legal move. But equally you don't have to trade with them any more during the game. It's not unsportsman-like because it is a legitmate move in the game. It's not unfair, or against the spirit of trading because this is quite literally what the game is about, getting an advantage over your opponents and using that to win.

Paddles wrote: ↑08 July 2026, 13:53

yellowmcflurry wrote: ↑08 July 2026, 10:16 I just had a game where another player offered me a trade, I accepted, we traded, and then they immediately used a Knight on me and stole the resource back.
...
What do people think about this? To me, it feels like poor sportsmanship, almost like they cheated the trade. I’m curious to hear how others would view it.

Perfectly legitimate tactic. You do realise that you're competing to become Lord of Catan, not to develop the island into a moderately-developed anarcho-syndicalist commune where you take turns acting as a sort of executive officer for the week?

I feel we have a new board game lol!