I'd like to note, this isn't really good business sense. Both 40k 7th and fantasy 8th had extremely poor balance that shifted every new book, and those two games shed players drastically. A poorly balanced game will see gamers leaving it. And for all the cheers of some people going "Well they were all WAACs anyways!", man, they KILLED a setting over this.
There are still GW games that do balance better. SBG, and, like, a shocking amount of people have SBG models stored some place. If you're looking for an AoS off ramp because your sick of triple keepers, SBG. Especially in the UK which has a huge community for it.
SBG is great and much better balanced than the two mainline games. And has a healthy community and healthy future.
If someone comes up to you and goes "Hey I have only really played like a couple games. Want to throw down?" and you drag out your triple keepers and body their list, you are that guy. If you only play your triple keepers when your opponent is looking for competitive tournie prepping, that's fine. Context is context.
The person playing triple keepers isn't not still playing that when they do open play. And some people will abuse the openess of the rules to the hilt. Matched play is as much a defensive measure against jerks as it is anything else. It is offloading the issues with trying to find balance to GW because a lot of people DON'T want balance. They want to win and will find the loopholes for it. Even when they complain about balance, they aren't going to moderate their lists or not use every single rule to their advantage, because the win is important for people. You have to have incredible force of personality and charisma to get people full on a narrative game that really does cut away the balance issues. I haven't seen it yet. When I played a firestorm campaign, one guy brought his tourney tzeentch list (tzeentch changehost was the best list of the time). And everyone else quickly followed in trying to build their own cutthroat lists with what they had. And eventually the whole thing fell apart.
I fear Cities will just be the new slaanesh. That's not balance, that's just shifting who is the most busted.
Currently the winrates for factions in 40k is largely 45 to 55 percent. There's no 60 percent winning factions right now in 40k period, and the one list that looked like it would break the meta lasted all of three weeks before GW nerfed it.
And that's the thing, despite what people who are, frankly, just haters say, 40k balance IS BETTER than AoS balance. And this is a thing members of this community need to get over. There's a vocal group on this forum that reflexively hates on 40k and dunks on it any time it comes up in comparison. And it drags the discussion down because 40k is a good comparison point. 40k balances itself more regularly and better than AoS does. Is it perfectly balanced? No. Is it even really well balanced? Not really in my opinion. Is it better than AoS? yes. Why? It's the same company. Because 40k has more resources put into its balance efforts. The iron hands nerf is just one of dozens of examples of how GW quickly shuts down drastically overperforming lists and builds in 40k. This still leaves certain lists trending to the top, and a couple of factions remain in the trash heap, but, man, there's no triple keeper slaanesh in 40k today. And instead of just hating on 40k and declaring everything is fine, maybe demand that GW put at least as much effort and resources into AoS as they do 40k. This is what I'd like to see.