It is easily substantiable, it is also however badly written. It's simple, the game must be balanced at all levels of play.
No, No, No, No. If bad players can't counter something that is in fact perfectly counter-able, its not the game's problem.
Not that better players would be handicapped so that they are on the same tier as a new player, but that any player of similar skill should be at no disadvantage against any other.
This is wrong ideologically, and impossible as a matter of practicality.
Ideologically, non-competitive players (non-high-level) have far less interest in fair chances or meaningful victories as they do in just having fun. Any kind of modification from a system that is perfectly balanced for high level play, that caters to the mid or low level players, will inevitably (and by definition) make the system worse. Because of this, it is best to balance to the highest level to achieve meaningful competition, and let the mid and low level play fall where it may, so that they can still have their fun whilst not harming the game.
Practically, what you propose is impossible. Somehow the devs are supposed to anticipate every single level of competence and design a separate counter system for each one? You would need to have Tactic A which can be countered by B C and D if the players are good, but if the players are bad they can use E F and G, and if they are really bad they can use H I and J. Multiply by the number of DGs that might run into that tactic (8), and the number of tactics in the game (big number), and by the number of levels you wish to divide player competence into (arbitrary number).
Thankfully, things don't work that way. There are tactics and there are counters, and if a certain player lacks the ability to use a tactic or counter, thats his problem, not the game's.
Why? You're asking, I'll tell you, not related to balance, you alienate newcomers to the game. If it's inordinately complex, or has too narrow an avenue to success you're going to push people away from your community (which seems to be your ultimate goal). But related to balance...It's not your fucking game, anyone can play it, and it has to remain accessible on any level, because you don't make determinations about what the game should be. Nor should it be an academic exercise for people to play it and feel as if they have an opportunity for success.
The only newcomers that will be alienated are the ones we don't care about anyways. When I'm learning a new game I expect to be bad at first, but I expect to learn, improve, and eventually reach the top level of play and battle other experts. Players like that will not be scared away if they happen to lose their first few games and realize that they have much to learn about the game. However, players that expect to be awesome instantly will be quickly frustrated and quit. Should the game change to suit their unreasonable expectations? No.
