Why was Bretonnia so neglected by GW? Knights, Paladins, etc.

Balanced rules for a cavalry focused army are hard, and GW is too shit at game design to make it work.

>>48280303
What? OH HEY LOOK OVER HERE SPACE MARINES IN FANTASY COOL RITE?

>>48280303
Gay frenchies.

>>48281717
Bretonnia is france + England

>>48280303
>neglected

It's easy to mistake GW's systemic incompetence as evidence that they somehow overlooked an avenue of corporate enrichment that you happen to favour. Just a moment's research reveals that Missed Opportunity is virtually their mission statement.

Nothing personnel ... kid.

>>48280338
Well considering they gutted out the whole setting to have that, yeah. GW should have though Bretonnia was very cool.

Because it is easier to make edgy as fuck designs for Chaos Warriors that retards will eat up at any moment than to make something new and interesting.

>>48280303
I'd guess they might be a little too similar to Empire, which can after all field armies consisting of heavy cav backed up by spearmen and archers, but frankly they had three flavors of elves so that doesn't sit quite right with me. My guess is the design team just couldn't find a take on them that excited them towards the end of the game line. I recall the re-vamp around the time that they gave Questing Knights two handed swords and had those peasants carrying the dead knight around was quite exciting and fun, but they seem to have lost interest after that.

>>48280303

Hard to say. Could have been poor sales, could have been no interest, could have been no idea where to go with them. If I had to choose one I'd possibly say no one had any real interest or were more interested in other armies.

>>48282138

It's funny that people assume that stuff like Bretonnia and Sisters are some silent majority and not as equally just a very vocal minority.

>>48285651

High, Dark, and Wood Elves were all different in various ways. Of the three the High and Dark Elves were probably the most similar in some aspects (Both having spearmen for example), but then they also had other things which were radically different. (High Elves had lion chariots and Dark Elves had Corsairs for example.)

>>48280303
they increased the price too high a long time ago but were too stubborn to reduce it

40 quid for a box of 5 knights? give us a fucking break.

>>48280303
GW has never cared about the desires of their fanbase. They throw models they think are cool onto the market.

>>48280303
Because despite all the people on /tg/ hating GW for squatting them for now, they would have hated GW even more for ruining GW by adding anything more fantastical.

Monsters? NOT MUH BRETS
Things not Basic knights and dirt people? NOT MUH BRETS

>>48287340
Yeah, the sad true is that people would have complained no matter what happened.

If they received nothing but minor changes people would have complained they were (most likely) nerfed, and lacked monster equivalents.

>>48280303
Hard to make a cavalry focused army work in a mass infantry + big monstrous creature edition.
A shame because they were one of the most popular armies for a period in 5th/6th.

>>48285807
Bretonnian fans were hardly just a vocal minority.
Thanks in no small part to them being part of the starter set in 5th edition and having a very strong armybook in 6th edition they were a very popular army. Despite receiving no update in 7th edition they were commonly fielded in tournaments. 8th less so...

Now Sisters on the other hand I agree with. Most people might like them, but very few people actually bought armies of them.

They couldn't sell them because they were pricing without noticing their competition.