I mean, other people have said this, but it's nothing like using a digital camera. There are too many unique characteristics of LF film.

There is no digital camera made, except for large format scanbacks, which have their own problems, that will give you such shallow DoF at normal focal lengths and middling apertures. The ability to do blurred-background portraits in broad daylight with fast film is nice. This is especially true now that most consumer digital cameras are going to sensors even smaller than 35mm-equivalent, usually APS-C or M4/3rds, leading to a situation where you have to use very long lenses and very wide apertures to get good background blur for portraits and closeup photography.

No camera sensor will naturally produce any of the unique tonal responses that you can get from different combinations of B/W film and a developer/developers. A scanner can capture this, but if the digital element is the thing actually making the image, these unique qualities will be absent. And then don't get me started on color film!

Most digital sensors are emphatically not optimized for B/W, and with small sensor sizes like you have in digital cameras, the interlacing or whatever becomes noticeable in the loss of resolution. Not so with a scanner, especially given the area of large-format.

And let's be real--the size of large format is a huge boon. It is so much easier to get a usable enlargement out of a LF negative, photographically or scanning digitally, then out of a small format photo, film or digital.

So why LF+scan?

Because it's a cheap way to have some fantastic and desirable photographic characteristics unobtainable with most digital cameras.