Your ignorance of 4e is really hurting whatever point you're trying to make here. Rogues did not depend on daily attack powers to deliver striker-level DPR, they could do so even sticking to at-will, all strikers could.
The Rogue is different from other weapon-using classes in 5e, since it gets a scaling damage boost to a single attack instead of depending on more problematic multi-attacking to improve DPR as a it levels. That's not a major obstacle to design, though.
Zardnaar is accurate.
Rogues in 4e only ever did a couple extra d6 of damage, which was their sneak attack dice. That was their striker damage, and separated them from other classes, in addition to occasionally higher numbers in Encounter and Daily powers. So granting them an extra melee basic attack only did a "piddly 2 extra dice" compared to any other class.
As he says, the battle master's superiority die granted attack synergizes very nicely with the rogue, since it grants at least an additional d8 damage and has the potential for sneak attack damage. It's a very high damage spike in place of a single attack, and a very effective strategy.
That appeal to popularity has been done to death. We've never seen any evidence to back it up, on the few surveys we've seen it's come in closer to the middle of the pack, with classes less popular than it seeing the inside of the 5e PH. Even were it true, it wouldn't be a valid reason for exclusion: the mere fact that a minority is outnumbered does not justify persecution.
Other than the dearth of popular warlords on the DMsGuild website that are moving copies.
If the warlord was half as popular as you insist, there would have been a half-dozen warlords, commanders, generals, and marshals on the store, and a couple would be Silver best sellers or at least Copper. Rather than two that haven't been able to move 50 copies in a month or 3 weeks respectively.
Similarly, if there was a strong demand for an actual warlord class revealed through the surveys, then WotC would have probably given us a playtest of one already.
There were two fighter sub-classes, and one rogue sub-class touching on the Warlord concept published prior to the College of Satire touching upon the Jester in UA. The two offerings on DMsG are just two more fighter sub-classes, an approach that just can't succeed, they're even not worth a look, no matter how low the price.
So you're not even going to support people trying to make content for you? You've said yourself you have no intention of ever designing your own warlord class, and you don't want to financially support fan efforts either?
That's not a great way of encouraging future designers to attempt a full class...
For may fans, nothing un-official is ever going to matter, getting or blocking the Warlord for them is as much about WotC making a statement validating that desire or the vindictive need to thwart it as providing a feature 5e needs or saving the dead trees that it might be printed on.
I think that a very, very, very small number of people view the walord that way. Like under a dozen.
It's also a very edition war laden statement and I don't think many people care about the edition wars any more. People fight edition wars when they're unhappy, and there's just not enough people really unhappy now for the edition wars to matter. The people who like 3e have Pathfinder, the people who like 4e still have 4e, and everyone else has 5e which is doing gangbusters. The edition wars are over.
Ultimatums like that don't work. The fanbase is too large and has too many voices for small opinions to really resonate. They have larger issues about managing the entire game line to really concern themselves with small message board squabbles. We frequent message boards on our free time because D&D is our hobby. D&D is their job, and they have work to do which likely means little time to surf message boards; doing so at home is akin to working on your off hours. Not very fun.
