The World Tree

KO were mentioned and there is definitely an argument to be made for Gunhaulers. Though I'm not sure they'd be my pick. For me it has to be Morrsarr Guard. The insane speed and damage capability mean that their small numbers don't matter.

God how I wish the circles were available to all hosts. Or at the very least, Empty throne.

Each attack is individual so you would continue the attack sequence for each dice roll as appropriate

I still think it is too binary a list. You either smash them or have no way of competing. Not to mention how dull an experience it is to play versus.

The Chamon artefact works nicely on him

Good memory! Though the models for those already existed

I don't disagree with your general point but Mark of Slaanesh is excellent.

I think it is clear that we were due to have Sons before the GHB - the point are in there after all.

They don't usually announce that in those previews, IIRC

This is simply not accurate. The Slaves to Darkness book can have several strong builds. Chaos Warriors as a warscroll are diabolical.

They are really bad. Yes they can be made durable with relatively high investment (min. 270 for the unit, warshrine and nurgle). But to what end? They'll get whittled down and those buffs are better placed on units that will have offensive value. The reason people dislike them is because they do nothing. They don't play like the background. Chaos Knights aren't great but they can basically function in that way (o' how I wish for them to be better!). Warriors just stand there and are killed. Marauders* have rend! Namarti thralls have rend!

Because many of the other units are fun to use? When I say iconic units I mean knights (which are tolerable) and warriors (which are atrocious). That is why I specified weird. In terms of design it has several good sub-allegiances and there tends to be high variety in lists. Both of those are good things. The problem is a few warscrolls are strange; Warriors need rend 1, Knights should have both weapon options; Warshrine is too variable (the secondary effect should happen on the 3+). Plus the army's allegiance abilities are too conditional (EOTG is a bonus, not an ability, aura of chaos is too restrictive). There are lots of phenomenal warscrolls in the list and the interaction of the different unit is really interesting and creates a high amount of depth when using the army.

The priority roll is central to the game. Do you play cautiously and leave yourself resistant to your opponent's charges but sacrifice board control/objective control? Do you play aggressively but leave yourself to the mercy of the roll? What do you risk and what do you conserve? These are the sorts of questions you have to answer. To remove it from the game would be to irrevocably change the game. Grappling with it is central to strategy and tactical play. It means you can't just rely on predictable, list-built combos. That said, one or two armies mess around with it in ways I dislike. Hearthguard are too resilient and damaging and fast. Overly shooty armies can be a bit abusive on double turns.

It is worth bearing in mind that we haven't seen the big changes coming to Petrifex

Having played in the realm of metal, the massive amount of entangling terrain is the biggest issue (in a good way - the terrain is meaningful!)