Okay, so the rule might not be balanced... So what?

The new faction they introduced has a pair of formations that you can double up to, on the first turn, drop in the first formation 9" away from the enemy, then use them as "homing beacons" to drop the second formation 5" from the enemy, having most of your army in charge range on Turn 1. As an added bonus, it completely ignores the "balancing" rule that models that come in from reserves and don't start on the table don't count as part of your army. There's nothing "balanced" about that formation.

The game's rules and armies aren't balanced. We've already established that. How many times have we heard, "Well, the gamers should talk and balance it themselves, unless you're anti-social losers!"? So that's what you do. Do you think being able to summon as many models as you have in your collection isn't fair? Well, agree to change the rules with your opponent, or to a limit (which is still technically a rules change).

We also hear all the time that balance isn't necessary because AoS is all about telling stores and playing narrative battles, and it's entirely narrative to come to a battlefield, raise your army there, and keep raising new stuff as the battle goes on, whittling down your opponent as time goes on. Or a Chaos sorceror begging the gods for aid and getting daemons to come support him (or perhaps just pleasing the gods enough to get them to send him some help when he asks). Those are narrative. Balanced? No. Narrative? Yes. Which matches what we're told the theme of AoS is.

It's strange now to see the argument reversed, to move away from narrative over balance to balance over narrative.

And hey, my primary army is Orcs and Goblins, with Ogre allies. The army I'm building for AoS is Dwarfs. Do either of those come with summoning? Nope. So I'm not exactly arguing in favor of something that benefits me here. (Sure, I also have a massive Undead army, but they're all set up for massed units and would feel weird in AoS.)