I meant the „by then older stuff“.
To me there is a big difference between a deepstrike & a 9“ charge without help & a swoop across the board & a then 5“ charge or something like that. Basically what was trying to say is, there is good alpha strike, because of risk and reward being fairly balanced & there is bad alpha strike that just leads to lopsided games. Or, just as bad & as you mentioned, whole armies that are all of a sudden out of any sort of meta.
Some sort & form of alpha strike will always and probably always has to exist. It has to keep gunlines and Nagash etc in check.
But a whole meta built around it is just as boring as the other way round.
So, I could be wrong, but Nighthaunt look relatively balanced in terms of their alpha strike potential. They, as you said, lack the shenanigans on top of deepstrike. So it appears to be more of an alpha threat than an alpha strike army. And if you can’t reliably charge after deepstrike you plan differently and it gets more tactical. Your opponent can then react, so the non deepstrike part of your army has to do its part etc.
It’s not „hey, turn one, I charge you, no matter where you are“. That is where some armies just get slaughtered and pushed out of any resemblance of tournament play. Would you agree, or did I miss something?
Edit 1: I forgot about the cogs - which I think are not a good addition to the game at all.
Edit 2: Thanks for the podcast link! I‘ll listen to it - and maybe change the above answer . Thanks! I love to listen to some meta talks, be it general or army specific. Even though I myself try to not get entangled in it all too much. Makes me not buy and paint the stuff I like, if I do (like KO ! ).