Fantasy Wargaming - How do you like it?

[Primarch]

Fantasy armies. Most of us have them, but since WFB went belly-up, they barely get any tabletop time anymore.
Pikey has made a valiant first effort with his War Pike rules and seems keen to work on that, but I'm wondering what the best way forward is for everyone else.
It seems like there are several options available, so let's run through them.

There are a few games out there that focus on clashes between warbands of 50-60 minis, grouped into small units. Age of Sigmar, Lion/Dragon Rampant, Saga etc. Each model is one man and fights/takes damage as such.
Then there are the various versions of WFB and it's successors where armies of a couple of hundred minis clash. Each model still represents one guy and they may attack individually.
Finally there are the other big army games, War Pike and Hail Caesar. Individual models don't do anything, they just represent units on the tabletop. A unit of 20 guys might be representing 200 warriors for example. The exact number of figures doesn't matter, everything is abstracted.

In the poll I gave two sets of options. In the first, units are more important than uber characters. In the second, super-powerful individuals that can mince units are the norm.

So what do you think? What works best and why?

(And yes, I have missed the small Mordheim/Frostgrave skirmish games from the list as I think they are something distinctly different).

[Spevna]

I voted for units of around ten, and rules where units trump heroes.

I'm not against playing games with larger units, but it wouldn't be my first choice.

Painting up several smaller units is more fun than painting up a few large ones for me.

If I were to go with bigger unit games, I'd probably go for Warmaster scale stuff.

Dragon Rampant and Saga (plus the fantasy fan made supplements) are the ones I'm most keen to try.

[The Other Dave]

I voted small units and heroes > units, because I think small skirmishy games of a dozen or so models per side, with cool individual characters (read: heroes), is where 28mm shines, and I went ahead and assumed anybody but me would be talking about 28mm.

That said, Mike's Hail Caesar hack, which is firmly in the "large units, units > heroes" camp, was good fun, and I do admit having my yoooge goblin force on the table is impressive, even if it doesn't allow for much in the way of maneuver. But! The fantasy game I'd really like to play, if I had my druthers, is, as Spevna says, Warmaster / Hail Caesar / ancients mass battles ruleset of your choice, at 10 or 6mm, with beefy units and heroes having little effect on the swing of the battle aside from through leadership.

[AndrewGPaul]

All of the above; it depends on the setting. "Figure ratio" is up to the individual players unless you're doing a historical game. I prefer units of 15 - 30 miniatures; that's about enough to look like a regiment, and not just five guys huddling together for warmth.

As for the relative effectiveness of heroes and units, that depends on the setting. For various flavours of Warhammer, I want big powerful heroes - especially if they're on a monstrous mount. Same for something like Wargods. For other settings, I'm fine with heroes simply being a slight bonus to a unit's effectiveness. Lord of the Rings sort of straddles the two; unnamed captains aren't particularly powerful but can give a unit a slight edge, but then Gandalf, the Witch-King and Aragorn are mighty heroes (and a demigod) of myth and legend, and should behave as such. Ideally the rules will have room for sword-swinging warriors, fireball-flinging wizards and wise commanders watching the battle from a vantage point and issuing commands.

[Primarch]

I'm kind of torn about what type of game I'd like to play. On the one hand, painting small units is, as Spev says, more fun than painting large blocks of troops. On the other hand, large blocks of troops moving around look better than a handful of guys. I was never a fan of the 5 man unit in WFB.
I'm not overly fond of super-powerful heroes that smash everything in front of them, but having guys on the table who are clearly heroic does work better in a fantasy setting. I guess having at least a minimum amount of vulnerability to mass attacks from regular troops is best for me. As with other genres, overpowered units/monsters/characters just aren't that much fun to play against.

[ashmie]

Units of 20 to 30 models. But then I'm weird and like batch painting big units of all the same colour scheme. Also I'm an Orc and Goblin player so prefer a big horde. Oh happy days. I do miss fantasy battle. Can't find anyone that plays fantasy now even those who own armies. Vets are still licking their woulds. Ironically Age of Sigmar has been well received by those who have bothered to play and invest.

[ashmie]

Option 1 and 4 are the same? Maybe.

[jehan-reznor]

The only fantasy tabletop games i played are Chronopia and Rackhams game, Warmahordes i classify as a steampunk game too much tech to be a pure fantasy game.

Never been a fan of the blocks of troops of the old WHFB system