Myself and a pal are about to embark upon a BC campaign, starting this weekend. I would love to hear any thoughts on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the factions. Are there any which seem to be a bit too good or
conversely, any who struggle in the new book? Any who are light or unfairly overstuffed with bodies, have access to too much or little?

Looks like I’m going with Mordor, my opponent with Durin’s Folk. Hopefully we’ll both have a chance to do well but we don’t want to ruin the other players fun. Both relative newbies, so apologies if this question seems a bit basic...

There will certainly be some discrepancy in the power levels, part of which will however only occur in specific match-ups (rock-paper-scissors esque situation). Some warband also seem to intentionally be designed to be weak in the early campaign as they get much stronger later on, or vice versa. For example, I'd say Hunter Orcs (Dol Guldur list) are pretty horrible to face early on with their S4 and multiple attacks (especially with a force normally relying on its D6), but the list doesn't have any great elite troops in the late-campaign. Fiefdoms is the opposite; weaker early but can become a squad of highly-skilled well-equipped knights.

In your particular case, I think you've got a great match-up. Quantity v quality, with the Dwarves having the better Fight value and Defence. With the various profiles, upgrades will matter too, as Mordor may find itself with some F4 and/or S4, while the Dwarves can become D7 (negate S4), get 24" bows (outranging orcs) or gain bodyguard with Khazad Guard (ignore terror). Both nicely diverse lists too, with plenty of promotions available. Dwarves may find it more difficult to get to objectives (short legs), but they are better in prolonged fights, while the orcs will head for the hills once the force gets broken. As said, a good match I think.

Thanks, that’s very useful! I hope to upload some form of battle report after we get started tomorrow...

Excellent, enjoy!