I believe those straw-men were in refence to the DM's difficulty asigning obstacles, not the power relations involved in conflict and balance. The idea being if a DM finds it difficult to accomidate one PCs immunity to certain adventure paths...that DM doesn't play with magic very often.
See, poison remains a valid obstacle for a cleric with Neutralize Poison in a way that it isn't a valid obstacle for a Warforged character. The cleric, the fighter, the wizard, the rogue will all feel this poison differently. The wizard and Rogue have a low Fort save. But the wizard knows alchemy and the rogue knows poisons. The cleric might not risk succumbing to it himself much, but he's got double-duty on healing, both with cure spells and with antivenom. Plus, he has to watch out for those bigger guys with the more virulent poison that could still get him. The fighter isn't too worried about most of the poison he's me melee with, but he's being peppered with darts from the sidelines which might have poisons of differing DC's. Nobody is being hurt much in the hp department, because the assassins are depending upon their poison to do the work.
One obstacle, poison, challenges all characters of all classes. In different ways, but it does it's job as a risk.
That risk is entirely negated for the warforged. They face very little challenge from the poison. His rescources remain intact. Heck, if I wanted to be a mean DM, I'd say they get less XP from the encounter because they never had much at risk. And this isn't due to power level or balance (except in a very general way about how they relate to campaign composition) it's purely do to what, IMHO, is a bad design descision. I think WotC WANTED the Warforged to stand out in sharp relief from the rest of the world. And because of that, their actual playability suffered. This was an acceptable loss for them, but it isn't for me.
Magic removes some risk, but it creates a risk in the process: the risk of running out of magic. This means that a different challenge later cannot be addressed. An LA +0 race is a freebie. A LA +0 race with an Immunity removes some risk, without spending anything. For elves, it's a minor thing -- the risk doesn't occur often enough to matter. For the Warforged, it's a lot broader. Any warforged going against a typical necromancer or assassin kind of challenge of the right CR will win because he is immune to the major attack forms, and he spends nothing to be so. One could argue he spends 1/2 healing, but the typical necromancer or assassin kinds of challenges don't worry about attacking hp, they worry about attacking levels, Fort saves, and powers of observation and magic.
Using magic to remove a risk in itself creates a new risk. An immunity creates no new risk. At least, not at LA +0 it does. And I think the warforged have enough immunities (and side benefits) to be worth some sort of price as they stand now. I do think the only reason they AREN'T LA +1 is because there was pressure on them from above to make all the races LA +0, since the level adjustment mechanic hasn't gotten the warmest reception...
And, Kamikaze Midget, that really was a good summation of what Wizards could have easily done to introduce warforged a lot more elegantly. But, as is, I have absolutely no difficulty GMing warforged characters. In fact, I rather enjoy having one character able to accomidate an obstacle better that others...it leads to all sorts of bizzare schemes that make GMing so evil-ly fun.
Fair enough, and more power too you.
But, for my milage, if I wanted a construct in the party, I'd bloody put a construct in the party, and not half-gimp it and declare it good enough to let them eat cake. Bizzare schemes are loads of fun, but I'm a bigger fan of semi-phenomenal, nearly-cosmic powers than I am of outright immunity....sort of a "bravery isn't bravery if there is no risk," kinda thing.
