I mean, the logic I feel being semi-advocated is one I hear in tcg and 40k community, at some stage or another
“balance/bans/points changes speak for themselves for player who understand the game”
Except most players at my elo espacially don’t understand the game. They barely get why spend 900 Mass = 20 Less tanks. I could tell you
“modern 40k moved to progressive start of round scoring at from progressive end of round scoring”, for balance reasons.
I am almost certain most folks here wouldn’t get how that is massively nauanced difference even if they play 40k. Unless they play at a certain level of play. Many would feel cheated sense the former style felt balanced to them and now there armies are much much worse.
A post Jip describing would
“9th Edition 40k has moved full from what edition started doing is a progressive switch to Start of Round from End of Round scoring.
This change has occured due to endgame mass bumrushing objectives resulting in certain armies with fast movement able to seize this advantage late game. Furthermore it skew army construction to favor very killy and very mobile that did not have ability to hold positions.
Etc”
You can even shorten the point “End of Turn/Round scoring promote kill all based gameplay not promoting playing the board with armies meant to seize and HOLD positions.”
The latter is what Jip is saying and talking about. And explaining the purpose behind changes sometimes make those who don’t understand how you go to a point, comprehend why.