Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I wonder how The 9th Age is doing from time to time, but with Kings of War doing well and other fantasy rules like Oathmark coming out, why would I look into T9A again?

Looking into it AGAIN?!

So you are familiar with it after all.

You like playing tournaments and 8th Editon style Warhammer

T9A is for you

Not sure when was the last time you looked into T9A but I'd say the game has been quite stable for a while now, rule wise. Seems they found the spot they wanted.
I follow what they do from a distance, no expert by any means, but I really appreciate what a community driven project managed to pull off. Their monthly magazine is a fun read with cool hobby articles and the game appears to expand beyond purely competitive play. There are a lot of narrative, campaigns and alternative versions going on. Like an ecosystem growing around the core concept.

To me the real shame is basing T9A on 8th and having really thick rules. Reading all of it is a pain. So many special rules and peculiarities, total turnoff. Not sure all of that contributes to a better game.
Even if I want to like it due to the creativity surrounding the project, other games scratch the fantasy battles better without adding so many unnecessarily layers.

Otherwise I'd be on board.

If you like WHFB 8th Edition you'll like 9th Age. If you didn't like 8th edition you wont like 9th Age. That's about the extent of it really. Although a bonus 9th Age has is the community and the number of small companies making minis for it.

There is a lot of modeling and artistic talent out there the game has allowed to them to make awesome miniatures and write cool background for the world 9th Age setup.

Sadly there hasn't been a 9th age tournament in my neck of the woods for about a year, and I doubt well have one any time soon given...*gestures vaguely at everything*

 Strg Alt wrote:
Looking into it AGAIN?!

So you are familiar with it after all.

The rules kept changing faster than I had time to read them last time (not that I had a lot of time), so I figured I would let it stabilise and then got big into KoW so haven't given it another look.

The Core Rules are now in their 2nd Edition and fixed for the next years (until 3rd Edition comes up) with no changes at all

only the faction rules are changing as they started with the overall re-work and plan to do ~2-3 full army books per year.

How about joining the 9th Age forum and ask questions there?

I have no interested in current T9A, it is a departure from WHFB. If that is for you so be it, but it is not for me.

The departure started from 1.2 for legal reasons, if you want a WHFB compatible version get 1.1, if not get the most recent.

I cant tell you much about current T9A, I didnt like what I saw of it.

OP? I don't hate you enough to sell you on T9A...

Just Tony wrote:OP? I don't hate you enough to sell you on T9A...

I appreciate your concern.
Why should I stay away then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:
How about joining the 9th Age forum and ask questions there?

I'm trying to see if it's worth looking into first.
What sets T9A apart from the other mass battle fantasy games around these days?
Especially Kings of War.

 DarkBlack wrote:

Just Tony wrote:OP? I don't hate you enough to sell you on T9A...

I appreciate your concern.
Why should I stay away then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:
How about joining the 9th Age forum and ask questions there?

I'm trying to see if it's worth looking into first.
What sets T9A apart from the other mass battle fantasy games around these days?
Especially Kings of War.

You would need to know both systems in order to answer your question. All I know about KOW is that regiments don't remove individual minis when they take damage which would be a HUGE dealbreaker for me.

 DarkBlack wrote:

What sets T9A apart from the other mass battle fantasy games around these days?
Especially Kings of War.

T9A has a more compex rule set, more complex/important list building, micromanagment (models inside units, models per rank, single model mechanics etc), models are removed as casualties
focus on heros and monsters with untis as support
the original 8th Edition Warhammer Factions with their 8th Edition units (not more and not less)

 Strg Alt wrote:

You would need to know both systems in order to answer your question. All I know about KOW is that regiments don't remove individual minis when they take damage which would be a HUGE dealbreaker for me.

It is so much easier than fiddling with movement trays and counting individual models for attacks.
Doesn't take much getting used to.

that is not the point but some people like the indivual model rules and want that kind of micromangement

there are people out there who use T9A for 15/10mm games because not system for that scale uses those single model mechanics

VBS wrote:
.

To me the real shame is basing T9A on 8th and having really thick rules. Reading all of it is a pain. So many special rules and peculiarities, total turnoff. Not sure all of that contributes to a better game.
Even if I want to like it due to the creativity surrounding the project, other games scratch the fantasy battles better without adding so many unnecessarily layers.

That's actually the point. T9A players like fiddly, and the current ruleset is a compromise between 8th ed fiddly (HUGE number of options, but some of them are just too poor and others are just so good list building ended up quite predictable) and some streamlining, rebalancing and de-randomizing to make it less predictable and less of a RPS so that games aren't lost and won in the list-building phase (default scenarios help there, too).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
that is not the point but some people like the indivual model rules and want that kind of micromangement

there are people out there who use T9A for 15/10mm games because not system for that scale uses those single model mechanics

I've played minihammer T9A without rebasing one of my warmaster armies, just marking casualties and with a little bit of extrapolation works.

But yes, it's a nice way to play warhammer on a kitchen table.

this is a possibility, yet I don't see the advantage over using T9A with fixed unit bases over KoW for 10mm games

 kodos wrote:
this is a possibility, yet I don't see the advantage over using T9A with fixed unit bases over KoW for 10mm games

There's no advantage at all. I wanted to play with my elves which weren't rebased yet (against a fully rebased army) so we tried to see how it went and it was good enough.

So, T9A is great for tournament players. (If that’s what you’re into)
The game resembles and plays 8th Ed WFB, but has more than a few changes to call it a different game.

Here are the pro’s:
1. Game rules are 100% free to download and play. If you want a printed copy, they are available on Amazon at an affordable price.
2. Use whatever models you want. (This is as much a pro as a con, I will explain further down.)
3. Game has had a load of effort to become as balanced as possible.

Here are the negatives:
1. Limited resources. The game is made by a small group of guys who mostly do this for their own volunteer time. Any dates given for releases or updates are subject to and will often change.
2. Armies are subject to restrictions that may be drastically different than what you are used to from WFB. Simply put, 9th Age changed A LOT from its original concept/release. A lot of people bought models based on rules that changed making that model no longer viable in the capacity it was intended for when you initially purchased it.
3. Use whatever models you want sounds great when you have a model that resembles what was initially released by GW. A lot of other companies make very similar models that work just as well. (Mantic, Avatars of War, Shield Wolf, ect.) Unfortunately, T9A also has players that will proxy pretty much anything that they stick on a base. I once played a tourney game against a Sylvan Elves (Wood Elves) army that was completely proxied by an Arabian themed army where nothing even remotely resembled what it was supposed to be. In that regard, I felt as if I had to not only play against the army list as written, but also try and remember what everything was being represented as. While this sounds like an isolated incident and an army with a cool theme, it’s actually more common in the tourney scene that you might think and becomes a pain when you approach each game round not knowing what is what.

So, in conclusion I hope if you decide to give T9A a shot, you have a better experience than I have had with it over the last 5 years. While I still play it on occasion, I’d much rather play WFB. I prefer the magic swings of WFB and rules like ‘Insane Courage’ that T9A doesn’t have.

 Wolflord Patrick wrote:
So, T9A is great for tournament players. (If that’s what you’re into)
The game resembles and plays 8th Ed WFB, but has more than a few changes to call it a different game.

Here are the pro’s:
1. Game rules are 100% free to download and play. If you want a printed copy, they are available on Amazon at an affordable price.
2. Use whatever models you want. (This is as much a pro as a con, I will explain further down.)
3. Game has had a load of effort to become as balanced as possible.

Here are the negatives:
1. Limited resources. The game is made by a small group of guys who mostly do this for their own volunteer time. Any dates given for releases or updates are subject to and will often change.
2. Armies are subject to restrictions that may be drastically different than what you are used to from WFB. Simply put, 9th Age changed A LOT from its original concept/release. A lot of people bought models based on rules that changed making that model no longer viable in the capacity it was intended for when you initially purchased it.
3. Use whatever models you want sounds great when you have a model that resembles what was initially released by GW. A lot of other companies make very similar models that work just as well. (Mantic, Avatars of War, Shield Wolf, ect.) Unfortunately, T9A also has players that will proxy pretty much anything that they stick on a base. I once played a tourney game against a Sylvan Elves (Wood Elves) army that was completely proxied by an Arabian themed army where nothing even remotely resembled what it was supposed to be. In that regard, I felt as if I had to not only play against the army list as written, but also try and remember what everything was being represented as. While this sounds like an isolated incident and an army with a cool theme, it’s actually more common in the tourney scene that you might think and becomes a pain when you approach each game round not knowing what is what.

So, in conclusion I hope if you decide to give T9A a shot, you have a better experience than I have had with it over the last 5 years. While I still play it on occasion, I’d much rather play WFB. I prefer the magic swings of WFB and rules like ‘Insane Courage’ that T9A doesn’t have.

For a tournamnet game, I favour King of War. Hands down.
Rules are smooth, so play quickly and games can actually finish on time for an event.
The rules are also simple enough that you can have a rough idea what an army you have never faced before can do because almost everything they do is expressed in terms of rules that are common to everyone (most armies have something unique, but not too much). Really gets the "easy to learn, but hard to master" concept.

The game's depth comes from making meaningful decisions during the game, so you have to win the game yourself (which is what I want in a tournament game).
As opposed to "depth" from options and extra rules and having a crazy spell or unit win for you, respectivley.

Mantic make most of the models that they have rules for, but players are free to use what they like. Most of the community expects units to look capable of their stats though.

 DarkBlack wrote:

Just Tony wrote:OP? I don't hate you enough to sell you on T9A...

I appreciate your concern.
Why should I stay away then?

He means 6th is the bestest evah.

 Orlanth wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

Just Tony wrote:OP? I don't hate you enough to sell you on T9A...

I appreciate your concern.
Why should I stay away then?

He means 6th is the bestest evah.

No, I mean T9A is a train wreck that started by WAACing the rules before shifting to their own substandard rules completely. T9A doubled down on everything that wasn't good about 8th.

My own preferences on editions is irrelevant here, my comment is based on the "merits" of T9A alone.

 Wolflord Patrick wrote:

3. Use whatever models you want sounds great when you have a model that resembles what was initially released by GW. A lot of other companies make very similar models that work just as well. (Mantic, Avatars of War, Shield Wolf, ect.) Unfortunately, T9A also has players that will proxy pretty much anything that they stick on a base. I once played a tourney game against a Sylvan Elves (Wood Elves) army that was completely proxied by an Arabian themed army where nothing even remotely resembled what it was supposed to be. In that regard, I felt as if I had to not only play against the army list as written, but also try and remember what everything was being represented as. While this sounds like an isolated incident and an army with a cool theme, it’s actually more common in the tourney scene that you might think and becomes a pain when you approach each game round not knowing what is what.

the problem here goes deeper than just "use whatever model you want"

T9A misses a lot if fluff and needs to players to know 8th Edition and which re-named unit is the replacement from the 8th Edition book

Someone who never played Warhammer and does not own the old books can just guess by the names if the units what models he might use
and while an Elven Pathfinder is kind of clear, a lot of other things are not so people tend to ignore that because it gets around the idea of free rules if you need to hunt down Background from a different game just to know what the appropriate proxy might be

until T9A gets the fluff released for all armies, this will get worse (and the team only wants to release it when everything is done and meets the high standard they are aiming for)

 Just Tony wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

Just Tony wrote:OP? I don't hate you enough to sell you on T9A...

I appreciate your concern.
Why should I stay away then?

He means 6th is the bestest evah.

No, I mean T9A is a train wreck that started by WAACing the rules before shifting to their own substandard rules completely. T9A doubled down on everything that wasn't good about 8th.

My own preferences on editions is irrelevant here, my comment is based on the "merits" of T9A alone.

Lets look at another perspective. 8th is a valid startpoint and many players prefer it to prior editions for one reason or another. All editions of WHFB had issues, the thing is 8th is the one that had the issues fixed. Early T9A does that. Gone are the death star units and unbeatable item combos, while nuke spells got toned down just enough. Yes T9A is inherently competitive but that is for balance sake, it is designed so that minimaxers and abusers cant go too far and assumes they will. It certainly had issues but less than any edition of WHFB and above all has strong faction balance. This was because early T9A took a gamers view to how to fix WHFB and did so, it basically made the changes the playerbase wanted.
Since then it departed for legal reasons and because the T9A community started their own creep. Th game has some issues but I had to be pedantic in fault finding to list them, and found a handful, unlike any edition of official WHFB where anyone but the most hardened fanboi can find no end of balance or common sense issues.

8th was only chosen as a starting point as the first goal of T9A was to deliver a WAAC proof version of 8th for the European Team Tournament

other options were using 8th Edition without change (but people did not want to play with identical rules again), Kings of War (was rules out because GW models look better than Mantic) and Warhammer Armies Project (too many new factions)

issues from 8th that are not solved yet in T9A are stuff like inbalance of armies as those who had no 8th Edi Army Book are still stuck in 6th/7th Edi untis do not get any update because "there is no model available on the market for new units" (which is strange for a model agnostic game)
also the focus on heros and single models or that re-worked armies follow the 8th Edition design goals (and have to add new unique meachanics/rules on top of the base rules)

also constant change is a chosen feature as the designers think the game will get boring otherwise and specially the tournament players don't want to play 2 major events with the same rules (hence why adjustments just to shake up the meta need to happen once a year)

 kodos wrote:
8th was only chosen as a starting point as the first goal of T9A was to deliver a WAAC proof version of 8th for the European Team Tournament

As motives go that's a reliable one. Warmachine worked well for casual and fluff players because it is balanced for WAAC. How you use it is up to you.
GW repeatedly fails to balance their games because they tend to design for the casual gamer, and this fuels WAAC because loopholes and unbalanced and mispointed units abound and GW didn't care too much about that. To make a balanced game you need a designer who asks himself 'how would a cheesebucket with no shame use this army?' and change it until the answer no longer is likely to offend the community. This focus on attending to WAAC by the developers doesn't mean a WAAC attitude is imposed on the game itself, the rules just are.

 kodos wrote:

issues from 8th that are not solved yet in T9A are stuff like inbalance of armies as those who had no 8th Edi Army Book are still stuck in 6th/7th Edi untis do not get any update because "there is no model available on the market for new units" (which is strange for a model agnostic game)
also the focus on heros and single models or that re-worked armies follow the 8th Edition design goals (and have to add new unique meachanics/rules on top of the base rules)

Later T9A is hero focused, early T9A isnt. Its very similar to WHFB 8th and heroes underperform compared to units.

 kodos wrote:

also constant change is a chosen feature as the designers think the game will get boring otherwise and specially the tournament players don't want to play 2 major events with the same rules (hence why adjustments just to shake up the meta need to happen once a year)

I have zero interest in later T9A, it has its own creep and problems and they are mounting rather than dissipating.
The general pattern is thus:

1. GW cancelled WHFB.
2. Players make thier own continuency game.
3. There is a vocal concensus on what didn't work with each army book and the core rules.
4. So the initial fix is generally very good.
5. Things go downhill from there as the continuency game is expanded and reaches beyond the collective core competency.

This above sequence applies to nearly all the WHFB continuency games, I do not include games that filled the vacuum such as Kings of War, as they are thier own beasts, I refer solely to direct continuency projects.
The WHFB community knew what was wrong with WHFB, so making an 8.5 or 9th was actually relatively simple to get right.

.

 Orlanth wrote:

I have zero interest in later T9A

I can understand that, but the current version of the game is 2nd Edition
it makes no sense to talk about 1st Edition that is not longer supported or (official) available

 Orlanth wrote:

As motives go that's a reliable one. Warmachine worked well for casual and fluff players because it is balanced for WAAC. How you use it is up to you.
GW repeatedly fails to balance their games because they tend to design for the casual gamer, and this fuels WAAC because loopholes and unbalanced and mispointed units abound and GW didn't care too much about that. To make a balanced game you need a designer who asks himself 'how would a cheesebucket with no shame use this army?' and change it until the answer no longer is likely to offend the community. This focus on attending to WAAC by the developers doesn't mean a WAAC attitude is imposed on the game itself, the rules just are.

A game system that works best for casual players is as clear as possible, as simple as possible and with least loopholes as possible

GW just uses the "written for casual players" as an excuse for bad rules writing and just copy&paste a GW rule set and fill the holes makes the game WAAC proof but it is neither clear nor simple, so you fail on 2 out of 3 points that are important

T9A is not very casual friendly despite being WAAC proof, not only talking about that there is no classic rulebook (they have what other games would call Reference Book with integrated FAQ, making it very hard to read if you don't know 8th Edi rules) but things like the round bases for warmachine, which are there to prevent WAAC players to gain 1/2 of additional range, cause more problems for casual players than they solve

 Orlanth wrote:

1. GW cancelled WHFB.
2. Players make thier own continuency game.
3. There is a vocal concensus on what didn't work with each army book and the core rules.
4. So the initial fix is generally very good.
5. Things go downhill from there as the continuency game is expanded and reaches beyond the collective core competency.

This above sequence applies to nearly all the WHFB continuency games, I do not include games that filled the vacuum such as Kings of War, as they are thier own beasts, I refer solely to direct continuency projects.
The WHFB community knew what was wrong with WHFB, so making an 8.5 or 9th was actually relatively simple to get right.

problem here is that the community did not agree what was wrong with Warhammer and why there are 4 bigger community projects (T9A is just most famous one around the web because of the ETC)
and usually Community projects start with the last Edition that still worked or was complete which was easy for the smaller games as if there are only 2 Editions there was not much to mess up by GW in the first place and not many versions too choose from

But for Warhammer there was never a concensus on were to start and going with an Edition to start from was a bad choice as taking the best of each Edition and write something from scratch would be the way to go if the goal is a new game in the long run

T9A has moved itself in a corner and the only long term goal now is to be like GW

 kodos wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

I have zero interest in later T9A

I can understand that, but the current version of the game is 2nd Edition
it makes no sense to talk about 1st Edition that is not longer supported or (official) available

I don't agree with this at all. Its yet another priror edition. So like 8th or 6th it is not longer going top change.
The T9A website no longer officially lists 1.1 but it is still there, all you need do is ask. It is a very good warhammer fix, 2nd Edition is post Warhammer and while a derivative uses a different and distinctive ruleset for legal reasons.

 kodos wrote:

A game system that works best for casual players is as clear as possible, as simple as possible and with least loopholes as possible

Only an abstract game can work like that. A complex game needs to be written from the point of view that metagamers exist and will actively try to exploit.

 kodos wrote:

GW just uses the "written for casual players" as an excuse for bad rules writing and just copy&paste a GW rule set and fill the holes makes the game WAAC proof but it is neither clear nor simple, so you fail on 2 out of 3 points that are important

Incorrect I dont fail on any points, GW does, the T9A community and most other continuency game designers didnt fail on them either. People knew what needed fixing and post WHFB they fixed it.

 kodos wrote:

T9A is not very casual friendly despite being WAAC proof, not only talking about that there is no classic rulebook (they have what other games would call Reference Book with integrated FAQ, making it very hard to read if you don't know 8th Edi rules) but things like the round bases for warmachine, which are there to prevent WAAC players to gain 1/2 of additional range, cause more problems for casual players than they solve

Later editions yes, but early T9A was just another edition of Warhammer, if you can understand that you can understand T9A pre 2.0.

 kodos wrote:

problem here is that the community did not agree what was wrong with Warhammer and why there are 4 bigger community projects (T9A is just most famous one around the web because of the ETC)
and usually Community projects start with the last Edition that still worked or was complete which was easy for the smaller games as if there are only 2 Editions there was not much to mess up by GW in the first place and not many versions too choose from

Unfair. You cant make a ruleset and expect everyone to agree on its merit. This is an unfair passmark. What one can do is come to a broad concensus, T9A and the deveopers of other early post WHFB projects did this and there is a braod similarity between them as a result. Different teams came to different conclusions on unit inclusion and points baclance, but the core rules of WHFB-fixed had a lot of similarities between them.

 kodos wrote:

But for Warhammer there was never a concensus on were to start and going with an Edition to start from was a bad choice as taking the best of each Edition and write something from scratch would be the way to go if the goal is a new game in the long run

You cant expect one. If you persist on doing so give up and play chess instead.

 kodos wrote:

T9A has moved itself in a corner and the only long term goal now is to be like GW

Agreed but that is now. I was more concerned with then.
T9A community can get quite toxic and I am not talking about the playerbase. I had my fingers burned because T9A endorses a number of miniatures companies in order to gain some pedigree. I can understand this. produce nice not-Warhammer miniatures and T9A will give you a rosette .jpg to put on your website. The problem is that the T9A hierarchy are very zealous in promoting and defending this. Now there are miniatures comopanies out there which are highly skilled with sculpts and production but rather lacking with regards to sales ethics. Wen I raised a customer service issue on a relevant thread of a T9A miniatures contributor on the T9A boards and ask for a resolution from the miniatures company; they complained and had my posts deleted and me banned for 'lies'. I found out i was far from the only person this had happened to, in fact I got a warning from one when I posted the complaint which prepared me for what happened next. In my case I got PMed legal threats from the company involved accusing me of smears because I had been ripped off on a sale, I posted this to support my claim, everything was then deleted by the mods at the request of the miniatures company that made the threats and I was banned and the threat sanitised while a counter narrative played out.
So long story short unethical miniatures companies exist, and if T9A affiliated the T9A moderation team may help silence those who have a bad customer service experience. T9A produced a good game at its outset, but I don't like their moral compass. It can be very expedient..

One thing I will not say is that they are like GW. GW are very heavy handed when it comes to business but never with customer service. I have never had a bad experience with a purchase that GW didnt make right at the first opportunity after discovery. Not all miniatures companies are like that and T9A affiliates itself with some of those.

It sounds like they need some kind of quality control of the miniature companies that they work with. Fair enough trying to get the rosette in as many places as possible (and ultimately having more available miniatures for the game will help it) but if some of those companies aren't above board (and then protecting them despite that) that will ultimately serve to push people away from their game.

 Orlanth wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

I have zero interest in later T9A

I can understand that, but the current version of the game is 2nd Edition
it makes no sense to talk about 1st Edition that is not longer supported or (official) available

I don't agree with this at all. Its yet another priror edition. So like 8th or 6th it is not longer going top change.
The T9A website no longer officially lists 1.1 but it is still there, all you need do is ask. It is a very good warhammer fix, 2nd Edition is post Warhammer and while a derivative uses a different and distinctive ruleset for legal reasons.

Warhammer is dead, if you talk about the game you usually say which Edition you are talking about as the is no "current" one
If someone talks about 40k, they talk about the latest Edition and say if they mean a specific older Editon
despite that 5th Editon is still played and you can get the books/rules of you ask people on forums

talking about early or late T9A is misleading (at least for me) as early 2.X and late 2.X or early 1.X and late 1.X is possible as well and not just early = 1.X and late = 2.X

the game changes a lot and I know that the project designers don't like talking about edition as they want to keep the impression of continuity and that everyone is playing only the latest version
and I know that lot of people prefer 1.X as it is closer to Warhammer 8th and a finished "product" while 2.X is WIP

Only an abstract game can work like that. A complex game needs to be written from the point of view that metagamers exist and will actively try to exploit.

Incorrect I dont fail on any points, GW does, the T9A community and most other continuency game designers didnt fail on them either. People knew what needed fixing and post WHFB they fixed it

if you write a game for metagamers you get a rule text like T9A has it, a text from lawyers for lawyers and if a casual gamer wants to start playing he needs an experienced player to teach him the game because just from reading the rules he will never understand anything
to make it WAAC save you have a FAQ/Reference Handbook in addition to the rulebook

and if you copy the rules from GW instead of writing them from scratch you also copy the mistakes made by GW and need to solve them as well (instead of not making them in the first place)

Compare the rules from T9A with WarhammerCE or Warhammer Armies, the one is a Copy&Paste GW work written from the Metagamers point of view, the others are written from scratch

and I never said that you fail on any point, but T9A does by doing Tournament Rules for WAAC players and claim that their rulebooks are suited for casual gamers as well (their game might be, but the written text is not)

also a reason why the designers are always suprised when casual player say that T9A has the least immersion of all games around
but the rules just don't support the immersion for the casual player as a game were 1 model/hero/monster is meant to be hundreds of soldiers, a hero with his personal guard and a horde of monsters but the rules are written as if every single model is 1 single soldier/hero/monster to be tournament proof

Unfair. You cant make a ruleset and expect everyone to agree on its merit. This is an unfair passmark. What one can do is come to a broad concensus, T9A and the deveopers of other early post WHFB projects did this and there is a braod similarity between them as a result. Different teams came to different conclusions on unit inclusion and points baclance, but the core rules of WHFB-fixed had a lot of similarities between them.

Different Teams used different Warhammer Edition as a base and the only consensus was that Warhammer need to continue
T9A project needed to write a rule set for ETC within half a year there was no discussion with other teams/projects or the goal to find a consensus for what is best or needed to continue with Warhammer (just make it WAAC save and fast)

what the project design team thinks is the best way to continue Warhammer Fantasy and catch the spirit of the game is T9A 2.0 (or Gold Edition) and other teams should give up their stuff to prevent the defragmentation of the community

You cant expect one. If you persist on doing so give up and play chess instead.

it is more about of taking the best of all edtions and make a new game from it, very much what Warhammer Armies did

So long story short unethical miniatures companies exist, and if T9A affiliated the T9A moderation team may help silence those who have a bad customer service experience. T9A produced a good game at its outset, but I don't like their moral compass. It can be very expedient..

there are strange things going on with supporting companies, and the design team
I am very careful with any who make miniatures direclty for the game and not just advertise their generic stuff with T9A
there were also companies who wanted to make stuff for T9A and were removed or banned because of unkown reasons (and it was not because the campany was acting bad)