Personally, I don't really care if some cards are better than others, it's a card game, so luck is a part of it. However, I think it's cooler if the five Warlords are balanced with each other, because then you get to play with them, trying different combos, etc... instead of having a "best way," and being done with it. Though, they seem balanced enough to only have a couple general rules, being: "Use a level 3 cleric," and, "Use a warrior if you want, but only level 1."
I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself if I am coming across as presenting that there is only one, or even a limited, way of constructing war councils. Especially since I often argue that taking a Level 3 Warrior is a good idea Hard to keep track of where I've said what, but I do spend a lot of text defending the Level 3 Warrior choice
The crux of most of my compulsive reflections on this game are how much I enjoy the interplay between all the different components: command cards, lore cards, lore masters, units, creatures, etc. Some may be convinced that there are limited choices for an effective force, even to the point of brokeness it sometimes seems some feel, but I am certainly not among that "camp"
For those that really feel this way I suggest this mode of play: for choosing war councils, roll x number of dice, equal to the war council level desired. Green Helm = 1 level for the Rogue, Blue Helm=1 level for the cleric, Red Helm=1 level for the warrior, Lore=1 level for the wizard, Sword and Shield=1 level for the commander, Flag=choice. Great way to break the stagnation if one is in a rut with war councils.
And, for what it's worth, I consider myself a charter member of camp #2