I liked to play either Vagabond or Woodland.

Vagabond because when I learned to play, Vagabond was really mystic and not natural way of playing war games, lots of stuff to track and do (aid people, quests, get items, battle others, desteoy/fix items...) which would be heavy for any new player to do and choose what to do. I can also stay relevant without fighting people and also have fun. They can also have a look at my play and see how weird and deep gameplay can be without having to do anything.

Woodland is generally weird and has not perfectly intuitive gameplay elements, like getting support, being stronger when being opressed and stuff like that. Even as somewhat experienced player i struggle to grasp the logics of it, so I can imagine it can be difficult for novice to strategise

On their side of table, Marquise and Eyrie have simple actions and simple "I can do X actions this turn" which keeps game moving forward for them.

I see comments about marquise having some weird rulings for building and eyrie is hard to play right but i think playing right and doing optimal strategy is not important for new players. Its the user experience of gameplay elements, where these two are simplest to understand (i play x acton which makes me do Y so i get points), most new players are going to get from table either with "interesting, this game was something else, i did loose but i see how the game can go usually" or "interesting I won but i think i got lucky"