If you manage to explain the advantages and disadvantages, you accomplish a lot. Because you allow people to make an educated choice. You teach people what to look out for.
If you just say "take this and only this, don't look at the rest" they get _one_ build. But they don't learn how to be creative with their choices, what to look for. They don't really learn the "art" of playing the game.
Freedom is great. But when you're an empty slate you need some walls and solid ground. You will want baby steps. Let them learn the art when they're ready. Both the original and this version aim to "greener players". And I give thumbs up to both articles, but I prefer this one.
really??
lets take a lousy warlord (and I mean above and beyond in the bad end) he has a 13 Str, and 14 Int (lord know what he did with his points) he misses with leading the attack...giving a +1 to attack and already did half damage... on an action point he gives +1 to hit...
how does this hurt again???
You're only think atributes. I can tell you horrible stories about poor leaders that boggled down and killed entire parties because of poor use of their abilities, poor selection of powers and really over stretching. I could tell you stories about one particular awful dwarf warlord, but they're so unbelievable that you will just call "bull" - and for a reason, I would too.
And at the time I would prefer to have this guide with me. It would save an entire campaign and prevent a gaming group to split.
In fact, if there is something that BOTH articles may be wrong, is the lack of pointers about how and when the new player should use his powers. And even so, this version is more helpful in that.