I think the issue is coming from this:
The Ryzen 7 line, I'm a bit less sure about, it's probably only a better choice for a small number of users. 6/12 seems like the ideal configuration right now.
I'm not so sure that 6/12 is going to be best going forward. If they put in the effort to enable better multi-threading, and talking about the advantages of more cores (more multitasking and ability to run things in the background whilst gaming), then the more cores likely the better, and tasks that already make good use of multicores I think already shows some improvement.
It's kinda like with VRAM on GPUs, where generally they push for doubling (512MB to 1GB to 2GB to 4GB to 8GB), so will doing in between cause issues? It can be fine (even look like it offers all the benefits of the 8, but at a lower price), only for that to not end up being true going forward due to the doubling being the general target. Usually it's not a big issue (and by the time it does become an issue, you can fairly cheaply/easily change, although the point being is what to recommend for people that are not enthusiasts that change components much more frequently).
Ryzen is actually weird in that it presents a tremendous value, and yet you could argue it is somewhat overpriced compared to itself in that if you compare say the 1600X to the 1800X, it's double the cost for 2 extra cores/4 extra threads.
However, I think things are even a bit different. I see a lot of people saying that the 1600X/1800X are more for people that don't want to overclock since they have the highest clock speeds, but the reality is that I think that's just not right. I get the trepidation about overclocking, but unless things have changed, and granted with the board situation right now it might not be as easy as it has been in the past, but overclocking these should be exceptionally easy, and so I really think the best recommendations and most apt comparisons should be with the 1600 and 1700 non X models.
They come with an adequate HSF (so at minimum you're likely looking at additional extra cost for the X models, which means they present even less value), and is there any Ryzen that aren't hitting 3.7 if not 3.8? I know 3.9 and 4.0+ is more scarce (not entirely out of the question though). Sure you're not guaranteed 4.0GHz like the 1600X/1800X but even 3.7 vs 4.0 is not going to make that much difference (certainly is not going to be enough that it'll be all roses at 4.0GHz but garbage at 3.7). But they provide the most cores/threads for the cost, come with HSF that is capable of handling them at 3.7-3.8 and likely could at 4.0 unless you have an awful case (which you could put the savings towards a better case).
I just don't think the enthusiast focused versions make much sense right now. Maybe if production tweaks and binning and they start offering worthwhile gains for enthusiasts that would change. But I'd say that the money saved (even with the 1600X vs non X) would be better spent towards a better board that would in theory hold up better for say Zen+/++ and save you money longer term. Actually even shorter term, better boards will likely keep up with memory speed improvements better and that seems to be offer a substantial benefit. Even if you argue that buying a really good board isn't a good idea now due to the platform needing to mature, would 3.7 not be possible on even cheap boards? So just go for best value across the board, and then optimize other value (SSD, where you can often get better value by going up to the next tier, so going to say 500GB from 250GB), or more tangible benefit hardware (monitor) or other hardware that might last longer (say case where you could keep it through multiple full system upgrades).
The X versions still actually offer great value, but we're in a weird area where the best value chips seems to make the most sense for just about everyone. Enthusiasts who are going to overclock will likely get 99% of the performance they were seeking, for less money, and average/price conscious people get the best bang for the buck.
But ultimately I guess I think the argument is, is the extra 2 cores/4threads on the 1700 worth the ~$100 over the 1600? It represents around a 50% higher price for 33% more. The 1700 is incredible value, but compared to the 1600 you could argue it is actually is kinda poor value.