Countering the opponents battle tactics seems to be harder now in my experience. since lists are being built with these tactics in mind, instead of picking the most opportune one each turn, they are really resilient.
I really think it would be interesting if there was a move away from objectives as just points on the board and battle tactics as random weird moves that can only be completed with specific units. It would be interesting if there were points for units killed and specific objectives that didn't have to do with board control. Maybe something like "keep the enemy general out of your territory" or "destroy your opponent's faction terrain"
GW seems to have been moving towards more abstract gamified designs for a while now, and I can't say I'm a fan. It all ends up feeling very disconnected from what the game is supposed to represent. And even ignoring the disconnect between the fantasy & actual gameplay, the endresult often just isn't very fun with how contrived the optimal strategy ends up being. Which isn't just limited to the way objectives work. The interactions of certain mechanics can result in equally contrived weirdness even if you ignore the objective. Just look at some of the examples of "orders please" in the white dwarf (or whatever that section is called). The "correct" anwser is nearly always a long contrived sequence of actions, regardless of the specific example. You'd think that at least occasionally there would be a straightforward "just attack the thing"-type solution in there. Combined with their move to a more "seasonal" gameplay model I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they hired some game designers from videogame companies, or at least some consultants. Which wouldn't be particularly great news. It's almost like more narrative-style objectives that actually connect to the fantasy of the game are more fun. But no, we get points for standing near imaginary circles.