Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Over the past couple of weeks, I've been doing a lot of reading in my slow crawl towards getting into fantasy. Knowing myself, the only way I'll really keep up the momentum (much less interest) is if I'm also really into the modelling side of things. But in order to do painting and converting, I'm going to need to pick an army first.

To this end, as mentioned, I've been reading. I've read almost all of the codices (well, mostly the fluff parts, and usually from bootleg books over a decade old, but I figure that things (especially the fluff) don't change that much over time, right?), and I think I've pruned it down a bit, or at least have a good idea of the general kinds of things I'm looking for.

But first, the things I'm not looking for. Firstly, I don't care, at all, about the power level of the army. This is going to be a project at least a decade in the making (if my guard army is anything to go by), which is a time scale that makes a mockery of the codex cycle. Whatever is strong or weak now will probably go back and forth over that time. Secondly, for the exact same reasons, cost isn't a factor, either in money or in time. If I've put together a 300-model guard army, I can certainly do it again with skaven, for example. Thirdly, once again, for the same reasons, I'm looking for something that isn't going to change too much underneath me. I'm used to 40k, which regularly makes entire new playstyles only to completely delete them in the next rules edition, and some of the old 40k armies have gotten completely overhauled and now play very differently than they used to. I know there's no way to predict that, and WHFB comes across as more "stable" than 40k, but still...

Now, the things I do care about:

- An army that's fun to play against. This is easily my most important decider. I've played enough boring games of 40k to want to be part of the solution, rather than the perpetration. This means, first and foremost, I don't want to play a gunline army (and would give bonus points to suggestions of armies that are good at shutting gunlines down, eventually getting people at a local club to stop playing them), and, well, depending on what 9th ed of the rules look like, not one of those armies that people crab about that instantly win games with magic (not necessarily wizardless, but an army where you don't need them to win).

The example I like to give is with my foot guard army. Even if I win the game, at least you get to mow down 100 guardsmen, so you definitely got to feel like you got to do something this game. It also didn't prevent assault armies from assaulting, or shooting armies from shooting. You could still play the army you brought in the way you want to. Even if I still won in the end.

- Good fluff. Yes, I know this is super subjective, but let me clarify this in two ways. Firstly, I like armies that have a good end game - if they win, and get everything they want, what do things look like? Secondly, I like armies that are at least a bit silly. Something that provides good fodder for a bit of a laugh.

One of the examples of this that cuts both ways is dwarfs. On the one hand, they're silly as all get out. I love the cranky old man yelling at teenagers motif. On the other hand, they have one of the worst end games. The fluff makes it pretty clear that they lose, and all you can do is have them go down fighting. Even if they do somehow win, then what? They rebuild their cave system and then never leave it because they're too conservative. Even if they win, they're still a footnote.

It would also be nice to not have to awkwardly try and justify fluffwise why a battle is happening. No, don't you see, this lizardmen on lizardmen fight is just... uhh... practice?

- Options. This one is also pretty open-ended, I'll admit, but there we are. I'm a good modeller, and a decent enough painter, and would like to have interesting hobby opportunities. I like playing around with lots of different kinds of things in a codex, so I'm interested in something that has multiple play styles, not just "that one way you play it" with your choice of support unit sprinkled lightly on top.

I know this is going to bias me towards more recently-updated army books, as they're going to have the newest models with good levels of detail in plastic, rather than older models that I'm going to need to fix up just to be decent, and doing it in pewter or resin to boot, and newer codices are naturally going to have more units to play around with. That said, who knows when they'll finally get around to stuff? I said my time horizon was many years, but that's not the same as forever. I don't know how long I can collect high elves without buying or painting archers because I'm waiting for GW to fix the hideous derp faces...

Anyways, that's the abstract level of the things that I'm looking for in an army. I've also been doing some more concrete thinking, which I'll explain below, but if you want to make a comment without bias, then consider this post complete, and don't read the following:



Anyways, I appreciate input, and welcome misconception clearing-up, and things being pointed out that I didn't see before. Etc.

Skaven do have a lot of fun weirdness. I like to think of the clans as skryre being steampunk, moulder is very Frankenstein in its vibe, eshin is skaven ninjas and pestilens is nurgle rats. There is not an army that cares less for its own men as little as they do their enemies. Skaven's bigger strengths are actually the massed skaven-slaves and the rare units mostly (except the plagueclaw catapults which suck). Skaven rare units are amazing and some of the best in the game. If a skaven player doesn't include warp lightning cannons, a hellpit abomination or even a doomwheel then they are playing skaven wrong. Same goes for numbers with skaven players needing several hundred for decent sized games. They are worse than guard in this regard as I have both armies and can say this with certainty. Get something to transport all those models as there will be a crap ton. The screaming bell is mostly a buffing unit and the plague furnace is mostly a hard hitting unit. A lot of the good skaven things are large targets so expect cannons to try to snipe them. Weapons teams are incredibly fun and wacky. Stay away from doom flayers though as everybody thinks they suck. The other weapons teams all have their uses though. Jezzails seem to be good cavalry and chariot killers too.

Alternatively empire is also steampunk and has some funny wackiness (pidgeon bombs and steam tanks) and funny characters (marius leitdorf the mad count was his name I think and he's hilariously eccentric and insane). Doesn't have to be run as a horde like skaven do. Empire can go heavy with stuff like demigryphs or take cannons and lots of weapons teams. Oddly enough empire has some elements of skaven in it which is not surprising since skaven scavenge and steal from everybody and sometimes do stuff on their own. Some people that aren't happy with empire now are unhappy because everything old now sucks and you need to buy a lot of the new crap to stay as a viable army. It's also very buff heavy as an army. Empire are the main good guy faction but they're not as common as space marines on the tabletop in 40k. That's the best thing about fantasy being that so many factions are so different, you get to play many different factions over the course of your play period and it doesn't feel like a million flavors of marine army.

Beastmen can be kind of horde but it's agreed their current army book right now is crap. It ruined more of the flanking aspect of beastmen which is something they used to great advantage. Minotaurs wreck face make no mistake and you can kit out a doombull to just eat faces. I hear a lot of the models are over-priced in points though except for maybe the core. Beastmen have very poor armor so expect that. I wish I could say more but I don't know enough. I heard the monsters cost too much too in points. Gotta admit the ghorgon looks sick though. Most things about beastmen are sub-par right now and that's not a good thing.

Orcs & goblins are usually good with a combo of both though orcs seem to be weaker than goblins when taken alone. Fanatics and netters are always taken on every night goblin unit ever pretty much and both are annoying. Fanatics are insane night goblins that destroy a chunk out of the enemy and are basically like mine fields for your opponent and sometimes you and netters almost always hurt your opponent in a pretty big way (-1 strength for any unit netted). Orcs have more hitting power and are slow while goblins are fast and have crappy leadership. Savage orcs and forest goblins are also fun but most of the wackiness is in the goblin units.

So...just to address your top four:

Skaven: have more diversity then I think you give them credit--they have all the weapons teams, rat ogres, the Hellpit Abomination, the Doomwheel...they have a lot of good stuff. You are still going to be building and painting a gajillion billion rats, though. If you want an army with lots and lots and lots of mans on the table that you can just throw away because you always have more, Skaven is for you.

They are, fairly or not, "that army."

Beastman: ...y'know, I don't care what the internet says, I think Beastman are freaking awesome. You hit like a truck in melee, you have surprisingly potent magic options, and a stealthy flanking unit. You'll definitely get major respect for winning as Beastman.

I don't think they pass your variety test, though...right now you probably wouldn't get to use the whole range, and a lot of the models are kinda similar (which is sad, given the potential of the concept.)

Orcs: An extremely diverse army, with lots of fun models. And you can easily do an all-orc army, or have some stuff count-as night goblins. Have plenty of extra bitz in the kits for conversions.

Orcs are incredibly random--even more so then 40k orks. If you don't like being at the mercy of the dice, you want like them.

Empire: Another very diverse army that can do it all. Lots of variety in paint schemes, decent variety in models (including renaissance-style, knights, some steampunk, and plenty of griffons). Lots of variety in play styles, including cavalry-centric army if that's your thing.

They've changed a little bit this edition, coming much more synergy-focused (Ie, this unit isn't very good, until buff the bejeezus out of it.) I suspect they will always retain their combined-arms flexibility and strong war machines.

(You think they lack character?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440091a&prodId=prod1670040a

would like a word!!!!)

For your consideration:
Dark Elves: Well, you said cost isn't really a factor, and their new models are really, really good. Fluffwise, I kind of like the idea that eternal life would just make you cynical, hateful, and cruel, and they also have a pretty clear endgame (invade Ulthuan!)

Lizardmen: I always have felt that the skins, saurus, and giant monsters have given the army pretty diverse feel and options.

But of course, you need to pick the army where you like the models.

Well, my problem with skaven isn't that they don't have interesting support units. Far from it. My problem is that it seems like every skaven army is going to look 90% the same as every other skaven army, and that there's just that one play style that you play, with differences that are awesome and interesting... but still just window dressing.

It's kind of sad to hear of them having a bad rep, though. I wonder why that is?

As for beastmen, once again, I really don't care about power level. Who knows what tier they're going to be 5 years from now, or 10.

That said, with the exception of O&G and, I think, skaven, every codex I read was at least one version out of date (yes, that meant that the codex for dwarfs I read was the gav thorpe one). What did they do to make beastmen not all I-snuck-up-on-yo-cannon-ho? That army rule of half-of-army outflanks is easily half of what draws me to that army.

I do like the steampunk side of the Empire (which is strange, as I don't usually go in for steampunk), which is also what I like about skaven, come to think of it. It's really tragic that WHFB decides to completely discard 40k ork teknology, as a magic version of a shokk attack gun, or a looted steam tank, or cannons made of bits of metal tubing that fire cannonballs for no other reason than that's what they're supposed to do when you point them at the baddies and shout "boom!" would be very epic. Alas. That most of the goofiness in their codex is from goblins is particularly unfortunate for me.

Anyways, apart from a few silly things, the Empire still just feels pretty vanilla, though. They have sort of one troops choice that comes with your choice of weapons that are in the rulebook. Now, they execute it in an interesting way, but still, it all feels too... straight-cut and clean? I don't know, I'm having a hard time articulating what my reservation is here.

As for lizardmen, I actually like their fluff, mostly, as it's the only thing that approaches skaven in its weirdness (it sort of reminds me of the anime Castle in the Sky for some reason). Some of their models are also very pretty. The main problem, though is that I just... can't... get over... dinosaurs... riding dinosaurs. It's silly, but not in the good way. In the "I'd be embarrassed every time I unpacked my army" kind of way.

And dark elves was one of two army books I couldn't even be bothered to look at. Canadian pout-elves reconquer Atlantis... and then... umm... my desire to know more has already been drained after the first five words...

To respond a bit differently from the other posters in this thread, I want to address the concerns you had in the first part of your post, and share with you some of my experience migrating to 8th edition Fantasy from 6th edition 40K. I started with Bretonnia, and have also picked up a hefty amount of Orcs, and my Friend started Empire.

 Ailaros wrote:


Now, the things I do care about:

- An army that's fun to play against. This is easily my most important decider. I've played enough boring games of 40k to want to be part of the solution, rather than the perpetration. This means, first and foremost, I don't want to play a gunline army (and would give bonus points to suggestions of armies that are good at shutting gunlines down, eventually getting people at a local club to stop playing them), and, well, depending on what 9th ed of the rules look like, not one of those armies that people crab about that instantly win games with magic (not necessarily wizardless, but an army where you don't need them to win).

In terms of "fun to play against" there are certain armys that you need to watch out for. Dwarves and Skaven can be very frustrating to play against, so can O&G and Empire depending on the build, and if you are an excellent general Wood Elves. On the whole of it the crux of the issue is that armies with access to cheap and plentiful warmachines often gunline at competitive levels, and just as in 40K, gunlines aren't fun to play against!

- Dwarfs have a metric ton of Warmachines meanign they can field machine after machine. The slow speed of the stunties themselves also lends to this obnoxiuosness- since they aren't very good at catching enemy units. Basically at a competitive level Dwarfs line up tons of Warmachines behind a wall of Crossbowmen who also carry great weapons. Once the battered enemy hits the Dwarf lines, they get ground down by rank after rank of s5 (great weapon) t4 Dwarves. Oftentimes games come down to if you can cross the board with enough force to break through the Dwarves you win, if you don't you lose. Very luck based, and not fun to play.

Thats not to say that Dwarfs can only gunline! But those options are generally less competitive, and hamstrung by the low movement values across the board. The book is really designed to stand and shoot.

-Skaven can just be plain soul crushing to play against. The issue is that in theory they are supposed to have cheap core to offset the high costs of their support units, but in actuality all of their support units are undercosted for what they do as well. Skaven Leadership is also generally very good, a block of Skaven Slaves get leadership 7 from the general, can boost it by an additional 3 if they have at least 3 ranks. What this means is that Skaven armies often have leadership 10 across all of their important units. Then you have Steadfast which grants stubborn if you have more ranks than your opponent, and Skaven Slaves are only 2 points per model, meaning they are typically in 3-4 times the numbers as enemy core units. This is then further compounded by the fact that Skaven can shoot into combats with slaves, and they have tons and tons of dirty cheap items and tricks which straight up ignore armour save. A well played Skaven army is truely soul crushing.

So lets say you go into a fight with Skaven. The first thing that happens is your opponent lets you know that he has the Storm Banner. So all your fancy fliers cannot fly for the first (and potentially more) turns of the game, and also your non magical shooting is all at -2 Ballistic Skill. Hilarious pretty much all Skaven shooting is Magical. Then all of his important units are shielded by deep blocks of slaves, (100 guys for 200 points!). If you cannot get around the Slaves you are stuck in what is essentially a leadership 10 stubborn unit with re-roll leadership (from the BSB). While you are trying to grind this down, you are being pelted by Warp Lightning Cannons which hit with armour ignoring blasts, Armour ignoring Warpfire Throwers, Doom Rockets, and Brass Orbs. To make matters worse the Hell Pit Abomination and Doom Wheels are absurdly good for their costs, and since they are random movement, you don't get any charge reactions against them! A well played Skaven army can be flat out depressing to play against as there is seemingly nothing you can do. a Horde army will never outnumber them, and they have so many undercosted tricks which just flat out ignore armour, and not being able to use fliers in the early stages of the game and lots of random movement and multiple wound attacks is just icing on the cake. Let me put it like this, I've had games against Skaven that I have WON where I felt it was depressing to play against, and at the same time I have been swiftly and soundly beaten by Beastmen or Empire and had a blast playing.

thats not to say its always unfun to play against Skaven. But note that they are incredibly luck based. If you roll a lot of misfires, the Skaven army will self destruct. In a lot of ways a good Skaven player is only playing himself. If his dice are mediocre he will probably win, if his dice are really bad he will probably lose. This tends to frustrate many Skaven players, and they will tell you that Skaven's biggest weakness is that they self destruct.

-Orcs and Gobblins have an interesting Book. On the one hand there is pretty much 1 competitive build, and that is a gobblin gunline. Gobbo warmachines are dirt cheap, wacky, and very effective. Most competive O&G lists consists of a gunline of Warmachines, and a big ol block of Savage Orc Big Uns with a Shaman with the item that bumps the Savage Orc Ward Save up to a 5++. Then they proceed to play like Dwarves, and shoot shoot shoot, then reward the enemy with one of the hardest combat units in the game. SOBU.

On the other hand, O&G have a ton of different options, and can be picked up very cheap if you don't aim for being competive. They have been in almost every starter set, so there are litterally TONS of ebay stuff you can pick up. My army is mostly built out of the 7th and 6th edition starter sets. Just the book ins't that great right now, and these builds tend to suffer aginst the cheese other armies can dish out, really forcing Orcs and Gobblins into a more gunline role in tournaments.

- Empire like Dwarves, have access to lots of cheap and effective Warmachines. But unlike Dwarves, Empire have tons of other great options and builds available to them, from Hordes of infantry to all Cav, to a balanced list. They by no means need to go gunline, but many do- because people are dicks.

- Finally Wood Elves. This is an interesting Pick, and they are considered to be one of the most underpowered armies in the game. BUT with that said, a great wood elf player can be very difficult to have fun against. Wood Elves win currently by shutting down their enemies playstyle. So basically they dance out of close combat with tricks like double fleeing, and shoot the piss out of them while kitting away. Then when the enemy gets frustrated failing to catch Elves they crash trees into them and hope they can break the enemy. Its very tough to pull off, and a thing of beuty when it works... but if and when it works its not much fun to play against, because nobody likes being shut out of actually playing the game!

 Ailaros wrote:

- Good fluff. Yes, I know this is super subjective, but let me clarify this in two ways. Firstly, I like armies that have a good end game - if they win, and get everything they want, what do things look like? Secondly, I like armies that are at least a bit silly. Something that provides good fodder for a bit of a laugh.

This is a bit more open ended, and I actually like a lot of the fluff. Skaven Fluff is very good, and probably more original than anything else in Fantasy. Orc Fluff is OK at best, and the whole Elves thing is kinda lame. In terms of Silllyness, Skaven have a lot of wackiness- as you have already mentioned.

Empire are an army of mustacioed dudes in poofy feathers and cod pieces. They are the subject of just about every campaign, and have some real nutjobs running around. Gobblins and especially Night Gobblins also have some excellent fluff, characters like Skarsnik and Grom are especially interesting.

Elves are lame!

 Ailaros wrote:

- Options. This one is also pretty open-ended, I'll admit, but there we are. I'm a good modeller, and a decent enough painter, and would like to have interesting hobby opportunities. I like playing around with lots of different kinds of things in a codex, so I'm interested in something that has multiple play styles, not just "that one way you play it" with your choice of support unit sprinkled lightly on top.

Orcs and Gobblins have lots of options, but as I noted earlier and as you noted, many of them are gobblins, and many of them struggle competitively. But as you are in for the long haul you should be OK. Orcs tend to get updated a lot because they are in basically every starter set, so generally shouldn't be behind the bell curve for long, and its highly possible that the Gobblin Warmachines that rule the Orc Meta today will be out of style tomorrow. The Orc book is highly varied, and you have everything from semi elite mobs of Orcs to hordes of Goblins, to wacky Cav, and tons of chariots. Its a great army that is currently a bit hamstrung by its current book and is down to just one build at the competitive level.

Empire have probably the most options of any army out there. If you like magic you can build a coven of light and throw out multiple high strenght banishments, or just spam low level wizards and warrior priests. If you like warmachines they can shoot on par with dwarves. If you like infantry State Troopers and Detachments are great, and Great Swords can make an excellent anvil. You like Cav? I've seen empire do all Cav armies and do it well. They have a little bit of everything and they can play a balanced list or to a theme and they do it well. I noticed that you worry that they seem a bit to serious. But honestly, how seriously can you take an army where almost every model has a poofy feather, a big mustache and a codpiece? My friend started Empire, and he loves it, he doesnt' really like Warmachines, and that has never stopped him from having a great time with everything from all Knight to all Foot builds.

Skaven as noted are generally a pile of rats with different color sprinkles. I don't have much experience with high or dark elfs.

 Ailaros wrote:
And dark elves was one of two army books I couldn't even be bothered to look at. Canadian pout-elves reconquer Atlantis... and then... umm... my desire to know more has already been drained after the first five words...

My absolute favourite part of any Ailaros thread is when we get these little "Readers Digest" versions of GW's fluff. I laughed so hard at this part.

Anyway I'm at work right now so I'll give a more OT response later.

Thanks for that though great way to start the day.

Figured I'd toss in a few cents about Empire. Think of it like ice cream. It's vanilla, but you've got a whole topping bar to load up on. You can flavor it to whatever taste you want in terms of gameplay. It may not be as chocolaty as actual chocolate ice cream, but hot fudge is still pretty good.

I think I get where you're coming from though, as I think I have the same sort of reservation about them. Still, it seems like they fit your criteria. They don't shut down any phase for the opponent and aren't frustrating to play against. On the other hand, you can still do some bonkers stuff if you try. You might need to inject a little flavor is all.

First things first, in WHFB it's an Army Book, not a Codex!

Anyway, you seem to be very split and very indecisive, so I'll talk a bit about the four armies you've mentioned in more detail. And, although we always get these types of threads, it's nice to see such an in-depth one! Anyway...

Firstly, I'll talk briefly about modelling. WHFB has many advantages over 40k, but conversion and modelling opportunities are not one of them. In 40k you can quite easily convert up a miniature and have him in your army, attracting attention. He's on show. In WHFB, that one converted model is likely to be hidden by the unit he's in, save for the odd character model modelled on a large rock, or another miniature, such as a Giant, which roams around on his onesie. WHFB armies are still very impressive to look at though, and that pleasing aesthetic comes from the appearance of all the ranked up units. As such, where WHFB armies really excel in the modelling department is unit fillers. Simply put, a unit filler is like a mini-scenario you put in one of your units. Because of the ranked up nature, it counts as 4, 6, 8 or however many models. As a general rule, the best armies for good unit fillers are evil and/or wacky ones. Armies such as Goblins have so much potential: you could model them roasting a dwarf, or model them wresting with a squig. Neither of these things are really fitting in an Empire or Dwarf army for example. That said, don't be dissuaded. As I write this, my horde of High Elf White Lions sit beside me, proudly displaying two unit fillers each with an actual lion on (from the chariot kit). It's an impressive sight, if I say so myself. So, when thinking modelling, don't think model, think unit.... (That wasn't brief, was it?) Anyway...

Skaven

Skaven are fun. Or, rather, can be. While a large part of skaven, at a competitive level at least, is indeed "tarpit with this large unit of rats, tarpit with this large unit of rats", there's a huge variety and randomness about the army, such as the Screaming Bell and the Hell Pit. There's variety too: I forget the Clan names, but you can centre your army around monsters (Rat Ogres, Hell Pits), weird technology (Globadiers, Jezzials, WLCs), lots of sneaky units (such as Gutter Runners and Assassins), or a mix of both. Any Skaven army that doesn't include loads of massive hordes of rats will be fun to use and play against. I won't really talk much about the fluff (I'm no expert and, like you said, it's all subjective - but the Skaven fluff is undeniably original)

OnG

Orcs and Goblins are similar to skaven, in the fact that they have a lot of randomess and a lot of variety, except that they have even more of it. With an OnG army you can have several very lethal models whizzing about the table, killing everything (even your own units) in their path, as well as other really wacky, random units such as Doom Divers, Pump Wagons and Giants. Not to mention animosity, which is forever keeping you on your toes. Some competitive lists aren't fun to play against, but any game with an OnG army in can be a blast in the right circumstances.

Empire

Empire can be seen as a very bland army. After all, they are the most "normal". However, the sheer variety Empire can put out in terms of what units do makes them often very refreshing and fun to play with and against. Now, I know most units are fairly similar (you've certainly not got an Orc vs Goblin situation), but what Empire can do is participate in every phase of the game equally well. Or, to put it a better way, can have as much as an impact as you like, in whatever phase. They can dominate the movement phase with Fast Cav and fliers, the magic phase with numerous and varied casters, the shooting phase with several war machines, handgunners and archers, or the combat phase with knights, greatswords or your humble swordmaster. They have their fair share of unique units too, such as the Demigryph Knights and the Steam Tank. Even the simple fact that Empire can take any Lore of Magic (and aren't particularly inclined to a certain one like Elves), makes for some very varied armies and strategies. It's easy to perhaps think Empire are all the same but, trust me, they're not.

Beastmen

I suppose it will vary from location to location but, generally speaking, I think Beastmen are one of the least common armies out there, which automatically makes them fun to play against. Beastmen are probably the least varied of the four though. They can't participate that well in the shooting phase and, although they have their cool deployment rules, your aim game after game will be to get into combat asap. You still have a variety of units to do so though, ranging from your standard Gor, to a Minotaur and one of the big beasties. Beastmen also have some of the nastiest characters in the game too. Beastmen are cool, but I personally would strike them off your list. They simply don't cut it based on the criteria you put forward. Like you say, the army does need some fleshing out.

-------------------

I hope this helps! Let me know if you need any more info on anything WHFB!

You also have to remember fantasy and 40k have some serious differences. As an example I took a 40 point slave unit of 20 models with my skaven and I flanked 2 demigryphs (killy nasty cavalry) and tied combat with them. This happened with 2 different slave units one after the other. If I had a musician or one more rank I would've won combat and possibly destroyed or at least forced a flee reaction to the demigryphs. One demigryph alone costs more points than that whole unit of 20 slaves. This all happened because I flanked them. Flanking in this game with decent sized units can actually help you destroy units that cost way more points.

Movement and the movement phase are extremely huge. You'd be surprised how over-loaded and sluggish a unit gets if it's too big. It becomes unwieldy and they get outmaneuvered easily.

If you take too many elites and only a few units in comparison to an army with more units then they can manage flanking easier by setting you up to get flanked with all those units. If they flank you with a unit that has more ranks even if it's only 5 models deep you will almost assuredly be dead with that unit.

Shooting is most of the time less decisive than anything else. Cannons help a ton as do a few shooting units but most of the time you're going to eventually have to close with the enemy unless you can run around them all day and only a couple armies probably can (lizardmen with skinks and wood elves in general).

Close combat is one of the more decisive things in the game. It's kind of true that one kill in close combat phase is worth 3 or more in the shooting phase. This is because you can get the enemy to flee and lose their standard while doing so. If the enemy is caught then the whole unit is destroyed and many more.

The magic phase is pretty huge actually. Lore of life and some of the BRB lores are considered pretty OP actually. +2 or +4 to toughness and a spell that can kill off any model in it with a strength test with no saves of any kind allowed? Sheesh.

So this game takes more strategy in my opinion than it takes to play 40k.

I started with Tomb Kings for a similar set of reasons.

Not sure if they would do it for you too, but they have a lot of options, can be played in a large variety of styles, (I have been told) they are fun to play against, and they ignore the power curve because they are at or near the bottom.
That said, when things go right. . .they are amazing.
It takes a fair amount of skill and a good bit of luck for that to occur though.

May be worth looking through the new army book.
They were rather thoroughly beaten down changed from earlier iterations.

They are also in the odd spot of requiring decent modeling skills for some units as GW still does not produce proper models for them.

Wow, thanks for all of the thoughtful replies, everyone!

akaean wrote:In terms of "fun to play against" there are certain armys that you need to watch out for. Dwarves and Skaven can be very frustrating to play against, so can O&G and Empire depending on the build, and if you are an excellent general Wood Elves.

Well, what would you say ARE fun armies to play against (and why)?

akaean wrote:On the whole of it the crux of the issue is that armies with access to cheap and plentiful warmachines often gunline at competitive levels, and just as in 40K, gunlines aren't fun to play against!

I'd certainly agree on that. The question, then is if you can do not-gunlines with those armies. It looks like it would be possible to do empire or O&G without spamming machines, while it does rather seem less so for, say, dwarfs.

akaean wrote:Skaven can just be plain soul crushing to play against. Etc.

What you're describing sounds more like "skaven are overpowered right now", moreso than "skaven aren't a fun army to play against". I mean, if I didn't take one of those couple of things that appear grossly overpowered, would it really be so bad?

Also, it does seem like at least you'd get to kill off a lot of rats if you were up against skaven. Your description of wood elves seems like it would be a lot more annoying to play against.

akaean wrote:Orcs tend to get updated a lot because they are in basically every starter set

That's good to know. Are there others they tend to be better at supporting? Clearly not, say, bretonnians...

The Shadow wrote: As such, where WHFB armies really excel in the modelling department is unit fillers

That's interesting. The make reference to the long bases that you can put several dudes on, but I haven't found much other reference.

I guess it's something I could do myself. After all, we're talking about square bases here, which are definitely reproducible out of plasticard. There's no reason I could make a correctly-sized plus-shaped base to put a mini-diorama on, or something.

kirsanth wrote:They are also in the odd spot of requiring decent modeling skills for some units as GW still does not produce proper models for them

Hmm, I don't know what's better, being able to use my modelling ability to make something that looks terrible look decent, or making something that looks decent look good.

Evertras wrote:Figured I'd toss in a few cents about Empire. Think of it like ice cream. It's vanilla, but you've got a whole topping bar to load up on. You can flavor it to whatever taste you want in terms of gameplay. It may not be as chocolaty as actual chocolate ice cream, but hot fudge is still pretty good.

Hmm, that's an interesting analogy.

There is something that I'm starting to see as a benefit to the Empire, and was something that I didn't really think about with the options thing. That is, if I have options, I have better ability to NOT use super cheesy things. Magic and artillery seem to be ascendant in the future, which means I could play empire with more state troops and knights. If suddenly knights get really good, and cannons get nerfhammered, then I could play empire with state troops and cannons.

Meanwhile if I played skaven, and suddenly horde armies became overpowered... well... I can't NOT play a horde army with skaven. I can only be the slaughterer of nations, or not play them.

I've long seen 40k (and, because I can't see why it would be any different for WHFB) as a game where player skill is defined as being able to more exactly play the kinds of odds I want to play. Having an army with more options yes would naturally allow me to play the game on the easiest difficulty setting possible, but it would also give me more ability to not do that. Or to do more interesting campaign things, or to have more opportunity with fluff. Or whatever. Having options means I can get out of the game what I'm looking for with a finer degree of resolution, rather than being stuck doing one thing and needing to hope that the game designers have the same desire for the army that I do, because without options, I'm just stuck.

The more I'm reading, the more it seems to me that, of my main choices, that I have to ask myself what's most likely, that I can write some interesting fluff, that I can learn to love goblins, that I can figure out how to do strange and interesting things with a codex, or that I can single-handedly fix an army (or hope GW does in the near future).

Ailaros! Well first of all i'm a big fan of the guard battle reports and I have to say that I'm pretty excited to see you wanting to play fantasy. Of course for this discussion I will be throwing down for my favorite rat men the Skaven. Okay first things first, you don't HAVE to build any 2 Skaven armies the same. You can build a BossSalvage Esq. Stormvermin heavy army, a completely clan pestilence army, or one of my favorites rock an all clan Eshin army filled to the gills with night runners gutter runners and solo assassins. Though you've robably given that thought and are just thinking "but its still just a bunch of rats", and though while true I've found a few tricks to help with painting, one of them is to use the Skaven fluff. While you can make an army that's entirely taken from the army book its a lot more fun to create your own and in doing so, you can have a few different minor clans in the army. A good example is for me, I use blues, reds, and oranges, everything in my army will have those key colors somewhere in them, and all of my slaves where straight blue robes to make them easier to identify, whereas the rest of my clanrats rock those colors in different amounts, patterns, and color combinations, which is a really nice affect combined with the natural variance of the clanrat kit. This really helps with the modeling/painting feeling of, i'm just making identical rat men. Other than that Skaven provides a wealth of collecting opportunities, convert a Cygor into a HPA, enjoy beastmen, throw some in as slaves, steam tank, throw some Skaven at it and it looks like a doom wheel to me (Though one that doesn't roll per se), this gives you a bit of the take anything shiny feel of playing the rats. Also for fluff, oh man have you come to the right place, Skaven goals are varied, complicated, and take them all over the world, seriously every army has a reason to be fighting Skaven. A small warlord clan, even one with many sub clans, could be ordered all over the world to get warpstone, fight enemies, war with other clans, gather slaves, or even to be sent into blatant ambushes just to spring them for other clans. Skaven are cowardly and manipulative, but humorously live a very, very long time naturally, any Skaven general you play will be immensely power hungry, and even though he knows all of the missions he's being sent on carry an ulterior motive, he will still do them and try to twist them to his advantage. Every time someone has been described as acting "like a rat" has nothing on the Skaven, even among slaves the Skaven jockey for position, hell in one bit of fluff one member of a two man weapon team is plotting to kill the other member because his job seems easier! I love every bit of the hobby with my Skaven also don't let people scare you off about price, using Ebay you can get all the rat ogres, weapon teams and clanrats your heart desires for crazy discount courtesy of IoB. Really if you have any questions about the Skaven PM me and I'd be happy to answer, i'm at about 4500 points of the little guys with no signs of slowing down.

 Ailaros wrote:
Hmm, I don't know what's better, being able to use my modelling ability to make something that looks terrible look decent, or making something that looks decent look good.

Interesting. I quite like the models (the base skeletons could use smaller hands). I meant that things like the 'titan simply don't have a model at all. Not that the model is not decent.

Most of the range is great.

 Ailaros wrote:

Well, what would you say ARE fun armies to play against (and why)?

Again, this is very subjective and varies greatly on the situation. Generally, armies that just sit back and shoot you are boring to play against, because you're simply slogging it up the pitch getting shot at. But that said, if you have plenty of fast moving units, scouts and war machine hunters, it can become quite interesting as you battle with your first wave of units to tie up/destroy as many of the opponent's missile units as possible. Also, armies that have tons of models and can use "OP" rules can be frustrating. This is why Skaven tend to be viewed as such. They can tie you up with ridiculous units of skaven slaves, then proceed to shoot at you. But you could argue that you should be trying to avoid such situations. Personally, I quite enjoy playing against Skaven. Some Deathstars can be annoying as well, depending on the situation.

Generally though, what makes or breaks a game is the opponent. You don't sound like the kind of person who would jeopardise the enjoyment of the game for the sake of winning, or anything like that. If you avoid potentially annoying units or builds, and are friendly when playing, any game should be enjoyable for your opponent. I faced a pure Dwarf gunline at a tournament once. You would probably expect me to have not enjoyed the game, but my opponent was one of the funniest people I've had the pleasure of meeting, so it was the most enjoyable game of that tournament, and one of my favourite games to date.

 Ailaros wrote:

The Shadow wrote: As such, where WHFB armies really excel in the modelling department is unit fillers

That's interesting. The make reference to the long bases that you can put several dudes on, but I haven't found much other reference.

I guess it's something I could do myself. After all, we're talking about square bases here, which are definitely reproducible out of plasticard. There's no reason I could make a correctly-sized plus-shaped base to put a mini-diorama on, or something.

Yeah, that's the basic idea of unit fillers. A mini-diorama that fits within your unit that makes it a little more unique and shows off your modelling skills and saves some money too.

From the list you gave, I would recommend Empire, just for the sheer diversity of the troops; granted the model themselves are a bit 'basic' (one kit for halberds/swords/lances for example) to quite flashy (Pistoliers/Greatswords), you will end up with numerous bits (also fits good with the Guard and vice-versa), but really it is the sheer flexibility of them that got me into Empire.

Like others said, you can go full troops, or arty train, or a fully mounted army or Wizard centered, or mix-and-match all of the above; it is the jack-of-all-trades Army. Like the Guard, a single squad sucks, but if played well and with proper support if an tear holes in anything.

Second reason I got to Empire was the fluff; Sure the Army Book talks about it, but I knew about them beforehand from my Warhammer Fantasy RPG days/books. 1st edition was 40k grimdark just with more gak covered peasants, 2nd edition got more in line with the TT, AKA grimdark light; the Empire is pretty much the line holder against Chaos and every else that's evil, Franz is holding the Empire together due to being a badass (the Empire did spend alot of time split up and bickering amongst itself), the provinces are so diverse in culture, customs, religion (for some), and fighting doctrine that no two armies are the same (let's not forget the usual bickering between the provinces).

As for the other 3, keep in mind I don't know the model range or background that well, going with what little I read/saw/know. (I do have the children of the Horned Rat book, so I'm a little more knowledgeable toward Skaven, if only that much)

Skavens are like the Empire, just in a more cut-throat/backstabbing way amongst themselves. Sure they want to rule the man-thing's world, but for every Brain, there's a million opportunistic and egocentric Pinky; something every Brain is as well.

Orcs&Gob are Orcs&Gob; fight for fightin', even in themselves, worse than the Orks really. I admit I don't know them much, but they seem less..comical than their 40k cousins. With more gong statues of Mork&Gork.

Beastmen I know little as well, apart that they are against civilization, worship chaos and...live in forests? They are the most common opponent of imperial armies, as they are nested in the large forests of the Empire.

So, I've been doing more of talking to people, and I'm noticing something strange - people either love skaven, or absolutely detest them. There seems to be no middle ground whatsoever, and I'm having a hard time making sense of it.

On the one hand, looking at the detractors, some of the whining about skaven appears to boil down to nothing more than that army being overpowered. Once again, though, I don't care about that at the moment. If I'm playing skaven, I'm going to do it strong or weak. Likewise, their rules being arcane or FAQed to oblivion, or having terrible army balance at the moment isn't that important because at some point, they're getting a new armybook. That said, if the army is crappy to play against, then it's crappy to play against. If you've played 40k for any length, you'll know that there are two kinds of players: tau players, and everybody else who inwardly groans when their opponent starts unpacking a tau army. Worse, if the players themselves tend to be worse people (certain kinds of people are attracted to certain armies for whatever reason), then it would be annoying to be unfairly pre-judged just because my opponents have met other skaven players before.

What's strange, though, is I can't figure out if any of that's true or not.

Anyways, on the other hand, whenever I've voiced my concern about all skaven armies being 90% similar to each other with just different window dressing of which few non-pile-of-rats units with which special weapon upgrades... well... my suspicions are tending to be confirmed to an unfortunate degree. When I hear "Yes, your armies are piles of rats, but some of them have the lightning cannon, and some have HPAs" what that's telling me is "All skaven armies play the same, and I can only get around this fact by nit-picking". Don't get me wrong, I love all the goofiness, but if the only serious choices I'm making are if my clan rats have ratling guns or warpflame throwers...

One of the other things I'm finding about skaven is some people seem frustrated that it's such a luck-based army. Either you blow yourself up, or you blow your opponent up, and it's more the skaven player playing a game against his dice with the opponent watching, than a game between two players. I don't know how fair that is, though, and, strangely enough, people seem to be saying the same thing about O&G, but without the same level of animosity (forgive the entendre).

Another strange thing I'm coming across is that I haven't come across much by way of resounding pro-beastmen. Perhaps this is just because they're a rare army, but even then, the comments I'm getting seem to be more "well, you can fix the fluff, and work around the models, so they can be a good army", and less "I'm super pumped about beastmen! You should play the army for a bunch of great reasons". Once again, this could be peculiar, but still...

Skaven are, at their heart, a horde army, and there's nothing you can do to change that. You could take Night Runners as your only core, but then why would you? Numbers are the strength of the Skaven army, just like better-than-average "standard" troops are the strength of a WoC army.

If you don't care about being competitive, which you don't, you can vary this up as much as the army book will let you in the Special, Rare and character sections. You could take a Grey Seer with a Screaming Bell, a Vermin Lord, tons of Rat Ogres, tons of Plague Monks, a few Hell Pit Abomonations or lots of weird and wacky war machines. You can vary it up as much as the army book allows you.

As for the "Luck" thing, I guess that is partly true. Skaven war machines can have spectacularly bad effects for the Skaven player when they go wrong. Whilst a Dwarf player's misfire charts will be mostly made up of delayed shooting and at worst a destroyed cannon, Skaven misfire charts can have you destroy large portions of your own units, as well as the war machine in question. Because of this possibility, Skaven War Machines have been decreased in points, which is fair enough. However, this means that when they do go right, they cause a huge amount of damage relative to their points cost, and seem like very undercosted units.

I would hesitate to call Skaven overpowered. They are more or less on par with books like warriors of chaos or high elves. And it is true that you get to kill a lot of rats.

But the problem is, as I have said before and evidenced in my wood elf example- power level does not always coincide with how fun something is to play against.

With other armies you feel like you are fighting their army, not so with Skaven. All their damage is coming from their wacky toys- the issue is that these are blocked off by huge blocks of Slaves and great anti flyer abilities. So it often feels like a race against the clock to get your army into contact with theirs- especially since they can and do shoot into the slaves! And killing slaves doesn't really feel good, since you both know that they are two point models who exist solely to hold you in place while you get hammered by ignor armour special shooting attacks. It feels less like fighting than getting stuck in the mud while somebody punches you.

I have played against and won against skaven plenty, with bretonnia of all things. But that doesn't make them any funner to play against. And I have lost to empire or beastmen, and still have had more enjoyable experiences than victory vs skaven. Yes winning is fun, buts its not everything.

As for armies that are fun to play against, honestly aside a few builds all of the armies are fun to play against. Overall I have been having a great time in general with fantasy. As long as you are not across the board from a stand and shoot gunline- and those are rare in fantasy except in dwarves and competitive orcs. I love fantasy because the movement phase is so important, and setting up good charges. Most armies engage in those up close dances of death and as a result the game on the whole feels more tactical and enjoyable than 40k turkey shoots.

If I were to recommend someone to start WFB, I'd almost always recommend a force that gives a "full" experience of the game. From that perspective, Empire and Orcs are excellent. All troop types represented, multiple different builds, incredible diversity. If you like the models, you're on to a winner, here.

I think Elves and Lizardmen also allow this, but Empire and Orcs really do it the best.

If I was the choose between Orcs and Empire, and I didn't hate the Empire miniatures, I'd say they have the most consistently fun playstyle. I've never come up against Empire and thought "Man, this won't be fun." I play Orcs as my main army in Fantasy, and I have to say I've always loved showdowns with the Empire.

I used to play Beastmen under the book you have read, and man, they were awesome. Nowadays I think the playstyle has veered away from that somewhat but I think the "ambush" idea will be part of Beastmen from now on, since it has survived two editions of the book.

My advice would probably be (assuming modelling stuff is equal across ranges) that Empire provide a really good look at almost every playstyle in WFB, as well as allowing you to try out all the different magic lores and so on. Perhaps they are too similar to IG for your tastes though.

I play Orcs and Goblins, and I have to say the thing that bugs me the most about them is that the book should really be called "Orcs and Night Goblins". I don't really like the robed look for Night Goblins and I'd rather more generic goblins, but tactically Night Goblins are almost always better and they have vastly more interesting units. Bit of a shame really. And I say this as someone with well over 100 painted Night Goblins!

New Dark Elves!

So, I've been doing more reading and thinking. I've also made a couple of those decision-making things like you might see at a seminar, including such things as if I saw army X and Y on the table, ready for a game, which side would I pick, and doing a tally of the main contenders vs. all the armies and rating how much I'd want to play that matchup, how good I'd feel if I won and how bad if I lost. Those cheesy kinds of things.

Anyways, of my original frontrunners, I think I'm going to reluctantly have to drop beastmen. They scored consistently the worst in my little quizzes, and, despite the fact that I like how gors and centigors look... there's just too much lacking. It feels like they'd be a good army to start some years from now, rather than one to start now for the next several years. The fluff is just too lacking, and the mini range just too small, and the number of options just too limited, and their fluff just too one-dimensional etc. etc. I could fix one or two of those problems, but I don't know if I can fix all of them with my first army..

The other three scored approximately as well as each other (with interesting variations, like playing empire would probably see me the most magnanimous about losing, but I'm more likely to actually want a game with orcs, for example), and so I think I reached my limit on that. Also, I've found it interesting that I haven't gotten much by means of good alternatives to the main four I threw down as frontrunners. I didn't intend for those to be my only choices, but perhaps I had accidentally already done enough legwork to prune things down to the armies that most people would have suggested for me anyways. That said, this is what I'm thinking about now.

Skaven: This army is in the descendant at the moment. Don't get me wrong, I still think they have the best fluff of anything else I've read in the WHFB universe to date, and by quite a bit... but. This fluff is starting to drag behind it a slowly growing load of baggage behind it.

The core "you play the same army" problem hasn't been alleviated, and I've been getting warnings about the fun-to-play-against category, and not just from here. I got an actual eye roll when I told someone I was considering skaven. If there's a problem with this, then the fluff category has to hold up the other two all by itself. It's not out of the running yet, but it's not looking all that great for the rats right now.

Orcs: I've been getting some enthusiastic support for orcs, but in a way, that's not that surprising. Also, orcs scored well in my "which would you rather field?" test. I have this nasty feeling that, if I picked something not orcs, I'd pull up to a table one day, plop my army down, see the orc army across the table, and think I'd chosen the wrong army.

But for that ringing endorsement, my chief complaint about orcs has only festered worse. The more I've been talking to people, the more it's coming across that it's "Codex: Night Goblins & Some Other Stuff". Night goblins are just better, powerwise, and are what gives the army book most of its craziness and silliness... but as silly as a bunch of stunty green pigmies chewing on hallucinogenic mushrooms and prodding squigs around is, well, if I wanted a horde army of silly little things, I'd just play skaven. Because skaven just do horde better, and just have better fluff.

And so the problem continues. I want to play orcs, but I'm not too keen on playing the O&G codex as it apparently wants to be played. Perhaps what I should do is start up a 40k ork army, because that's what I'm really looking for, and I'm just projecting onto WHFB.

Empire: The empire has been sort of lagging behind for most of this decision making process. Just recently, it scored poorly on my quizzes (not beastmen poorly, but still). Also, it has this strange thing that's going on where I'm finding that it's the army I secretly want to choose, but for some reason, not necessarily to play. In a way, I feel like there's this vortex slowly sucking me in to my doom of playing what appears to be the imperial guard/space marines of the WHFB world.

But despite the foreboding, I'm finding it kind of hard to argue against them. Even more than orcs, I've gotten encouragement to play Empire, and for a few relatively sophisticated reasons. I'm starting to sort out the fluff problems a bit (my running image at the moment is the armies of Rudolph, Mayor of Dorffendorf, bravely defending their "wig factories, tea parlors and barber shop quartet amphitheaters" from the forces of evil). I've yet to hear a single complaint of any kind about the Empire either, while I've seen a bit of a stink about goblin gunlines and the endless torrent of bilge hate for the bilge rats. I'm also, in a way, considering them the best as well. I like the tactics and flexibility of state troops, and how everything meshes and synergizes, especially compared to, say, just throwing a big pile of boar boyz straight forward.

But I still can't shake the feeling that they're just so, sort of default and bland. In a way, it feels like Empire is the broccoli and bran muffins army, where I know it's the best for me, but at the back of my mind is orcs, the pizza and coke army that promises to be more fun. The question is one of if it's worthwhile to live with the sleepless night and upset stomach the next day.

Put another way, between these two front runners, it appears to be a head vs. heart kind of thing. I guess it might come down to a matter of if which happens first, getting my heart behind clockwork tercio tactics or getting my rational self behind a flawed army that I just compulsively want more...

The best thing that I can tell you in regards to Empire is that they are not just the Empire that you see on the tin.

You can use that army to represent a bunch of crazed religious nutters or hardened campaigning mercenaries. They really are like the Imperial Guard in that regards.

I'm making two assumptions here:
1. You're still dismissing Tomb Kings for being a duller variant of Skaven;
2. You've only read the 6th edition Tomb Kings book.

If these are true, a deeper look into Tomb Kings may yet be interesting for you. I think they gained a lot of flavour with the 8th edition book, mostly in unit choices. They differ from Skaven in having things like chariots, knights and flyers, i.e.: they are closer to the versatility of Empire and Orcs. They are also different by their reliance on magic (not magic to destroy stuff, but magic to make the actual army work). Better still: the Tomb Kings still blow up every now and then . The internet does say all these versatile options suck (or rather TK in general), but you said you weren't bothered by that . If the fluff isn't good enough for you, there is a trilogy of Time of Legends books detailing how the Nehekharan society became the Tomb Kings, their relationship to Vampires and some other stuff. I really enjoyed reading these books. So, maybe worth a look, if only because another look at something different might make you re-appreciate your first picks.

Have you considered Ogre Kingdoms?

I picked them for my WFB army (having previously played Skaven and Orcs) because of their low model count and because their play style is completely opposite to my 40K Eldar army.

It is possible to make quite a few different armies out of the book, including:

- Monstrous Infantry mob - lots of Ogres, Ironguts, Man Eaters

- Fast moving - All Ogres are pretty fast anyway being M6 but units like Mournfangs and Yhetees are even quicker

- Horde - Fielding lots of Gnoblars can make a Skaven style horde army with combat backup from the Ogres

Shooty - With Leadbelchers, Ironblasters, Scraplaunchers, Stonehorns with Harpoons, Hunters, Thundertusks and handgun wielding maneaters, the Ogres can be surprisingly shooty.

With no shooty units in Core and a majority bs of 3, they won't be making a gunline any time soon, but they can still put out a fair bit of hurt in the shooting phase.

I'm going to offer up the Vampire Counts for consideration.

First, they aren't limited to being a horde army from what I understand. You can go more elite with Grave Guard and Black Knights and their monstrous infantry units.

I don't think the lack of an "end game" is as large a concern with VC as other factions since they are one of the least nationalistic races in the game. Your army could just as easily be the state Army of the Carsteins from Sylvania as be the bodyguard of the insane necromancer hiding in a tower deep in the woods.

There are almost no match-ups that break the fluff which is always nice.

The strongest point I can make in the armies favour is that you have the largest selection of models in the entire game. When I first started playing Fantasy in 5th my friends older brother helped us learn how to build and play the game. He played Undead and when one of our characters would lose a duel with his Vampire lord in a week or two he'd have bought and converted a dead version of our hero to add to his skeleton horde. This not only drew us in further it was our first introduction to converting. That kind of freedom in your model range is really exciting.

Like the rules of something that was just released but dislike the model? Just find anything else in the game that shares the same base and size and convert it to be a corrupted or reanimated version.

You can theme your force around the personality and back-story of your characters. You could use everything whose aesthetics you like from the other factions as your reanimated minions. While tying the whole concept together through your General's back-story.

Given the talents you've displayed in the painting and modeling section this could lead to a very unique and stunning collection in the next 10 years.

Unfortunately I've yet to play against either Skaven or Empire (though I'd really like to start Empire) so I can't help you with specific choices. Instead I'll try to address some general points.

The main issues in the "fun to play against" category are that an army can either be so incredibly good that you have no chance against it (such as optimised WoC or whatnot) or that it just doesn't let you play the game. The latter issue you'll recognize from 40k; an example is when a friend took Guard blobs with Runepriests and prescience. It ended up that I just couldn't charge them, as he'd gun me down with all his shots, and so my Orks were basically just left wandering around and looking useless. This happens in Fantasy with Gunlines, as has been discussed, and with "denial" lists which simply don't let you get into combat. Avoiding dangerous combats is a big part of Fantasy, but if you never get to actually swing a sword at something then that grates. If you avoid these two problems, then generally you'll not make an army that is annoying to fight.

As you say, fluff is subjective. I personally find Imperial Guard fluff to be tear-inducingly boring, while I know many who feel the same way about the Space Marines whom I find quite entertaining. Fantasy doesn't have quite the same emphasis upon making your own story up (as it isn't an endlessly big galaxy to play around in), but there is certainly a great deal of room to move. In addition, GW are very careful to give every race a reason to fight each other - even Tomb Kings have stories in the 8th edition book about fighting in the Chaos Wastes and Lustria and whatnot.

Most WFB races have a lot of options - they just tend to stick them all in Specials and Rare. When an army has lots of options in Core, it lets them set a tone for the army (all cavalry, horde, etc). Conversely, an army with limited Core options but loads of Rare or Special options will tend to have the same army in most games but with different sprinkles. Empire have a lot of core options, which is why they can run a wide variety of lists. So do Tomb Kings - you can use Core to establish Wizard bunkers, massive Skeleton Warrior buses, or thundering squadrons of Chariots, and thus establish the tone for the whole army. Where races like Beastmen (and Skaven, perhaps) is that the Core is basically going to be the same every game. Lizardmen are very bad for this, and the recent book did nothing to add spice to their Core options, sadly.

I don't know if this makes a difference to you, but of all the armies in WFB, Empire and O&G both feel like "real" armies. They have moderately good rank and file, they have elite shock troops, they have cavalry, they have artillery, they have generals whose leadership is genuinely important to the army as a whole. You can field an army with either book that feels like it operates as a fantastical, but historical army is supposed to work. Their heroes are competent in combat, but always army little bit of an underdog to most armies' characters, so you feel like you accomplish something when they punch above their weight class.