3 hours ago, Frimmel said:

I am not familiar with what happened to L5R. I have been somewhat curious about the game but simply do not have the bandwidth for it. Could you give a brief rundown, or perhaps in your case the very brief rundown.

See below...

7 hours ago, dezzmont said:

On top of this, faction balance (and levels of support) have been a critical issue and I suspect if we go another points change without major changes the game is going to collapse on itself, L5R style.

Are we talking about FFG L5R or AEG L5R?

If we're talking about AEG L5R, I can understand. A HUGE part of that game was players having direct influence on how their faction developed through story tournaments and world-shaking events. It kept players coming back for more, because they really identified with their faction.

If we're talking about FFG L5R, I have no idea of the context.

6 hours ago, Frimmel said:

Could you give a brief rundown, or perhaps in your case the very brief rundown.

Oh Jeez. That is a tall ask but I will try.

Every game with factions uses those factions to help refine player identity and create a more personal connection with the game, but L5R did this extra hard. In the change of ownership, FFG paid lip service to this but didn't really maintain the big metaplot changing conflicts that allowed real world players to feel like their efforts made them 'part of the game.'

To start,they dropped a few factions from the game entirely, and one, the Mantis Clan, was hugely popular and really contained 3 full blown factions within it, meaning a lot of players were told to either abandon their identity or stop playing. So rough start, it was a massive bone-headed move for FFG to not launch with Mantis when Mantis players are up there with Crab, Scorpion, or Crane in being 'Mantis players.' I was personally a Mantis player (Specifically Kitsune) but had Crane as a fallback, so I stuck it out. Other mantis didn't and bailed right away, hurting local scenes quite a bit.

Then, there was the massive power imbalance: Crab and Scorpion came out swinging with ridiculously potent decks due to Scorpion basically being able to attack your 'mana' and Crab having the ability to recur cards in a game where everything was temporary, resulting in them completely dominating the game for a very long time. This is really bad in a game where your supposed to 'stick' to a faction: If one faction is just objectively superior it hurts the game quite a bit. So FFG printed bonkers stuff in other clans, which lead to the totally dominant decks rotating around but almost always being a very small number of clans, which is just super unsatisfying: It doesn't matter if last meta you had the best deck, if next rotation Phoenix 'triple tapping' you over and over with the same character in multiple fights is completely blowing you out next meta. The difference between good and bad clans were too huge and a given player was unlikely to be willing to 'sit out' their favorite clan.

Worse, mechanical identity was severely hurt, as some clans didn't resemble themselves at all, and a major concept in L5R (Asymetric victory conditions) were dropped for being 'uninteractive' when, in reality, stuff like Ring victory and Honor Victory are a big part of people's identity in L5R. Non-combat ways to win were gone despite two of the clans having pacifism as a major theme, and three more focusing heavily on it. Honor victory and Ring victory going away made Crane and Scorpion play similarly, and Dragon and Phoenix. Worse, we got 'nega-identity' with Crane becoming a DISHONOR themed clan despite them not winning via dishonor being an important part of their identity.

And unlike old L5R where set rotation was constant, so a clan could win a major tournament and get a metaplot reward and find next set they were merely weaker rather than another clan getting some ridiculous combo that totally changes the game. L5R just tried to counter this by endless power creep because it wasn't realistic to rotate the core set.

So it just became this cycle of nonsense where no one was really happy with their faction regardless of the fact their faction had a 80% winrate deck the meta before, because most of the time your faction just sucked, so people left. Some factions were always good, but really once 2-3 clans bailed that was enough to make the scene fall out from under it, which is why the Rebels situation is so troubling: Rebel players are a very big portion of the player base (They are dramatically over-repped at tourneys despite their garbage winrate which means they are actually likely under-represented at the tournament scenes they are over-represented at, compared to the casual player base, which is terrifying). So Rebels constantly being such a bottom spot that they have a 50% chance of losing games they 'should' win is existentially terrifying because it may mean the largest group of players starts to hemorrhage from dissatisfaction from always feeling like they are at the bottom, and the fact Handbrake Han used to be one of the most oppressive lists in the game doesn't change that.

TL;DR: FFG didn't care about faction imbalance or the fact certain mechanics that their designers considered uninteractive were very important to the experience, and don't really understand that faction minded players care way less about having metas where their faction is really strong, and much more about never having metas where their faction is horribly weak. Doesn't matter to the people at my local stronghold (An organized play entity you 'fight over'. My local stronghold is consistently a crane stronghold in AEG's L5R) that Crane got to have a top meta for a brief period: They left well before then because Crane lacked what was important to Crane, and got utterly blown out by Hida Recurssion for two metas too long, and now the stronghold no longer exist and I can't find a game in my state.

TL;DR;DR: FFG dropped a major faction with a super dedicated playerbase from the game, allowed the majority of its factions to be totally non-viable for multiple rotations, and erased parts of the factions that were important to those factions in order to streamline the game and avoid balancing around those victory conditions. People who cared about those factions didn't wait around for the metas when their factions got to be the ones doing the beating.

seeing a bit of a resurgence here in NZ, at least in my area (Auckland and Hamilton). organised events just starting to happen again.

I dropped L5R when battle maidens weren't going to be a possible build at launch.

1 hour ago, All Shields Forward said:

I dropped L5R when battle maidens weren't going to be a possible build at launch.

Speaking of totally derailing this thread, I’m sad that Naboo handmaidens did not get a reduction so we could play battle maidens

11 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Speaking of totally derailing this thread, I’m sad that Naboo handmaidens did not get a reduction so we could play battle maidens

They could probably see a drop, true. FFG clearly thinks their ability is very strong, but the community has not bit on that. Back when you could get Ric Olie at 42, why would you have even bought a Handmaiden. At launch, they actually cost more than him.

If the N1 had a native evade action, they'd be better, but having to go full throttle to even consider the ability is rough.

Overall I think x wing is doing as well.

Hyperspace is great

Extended is okay. Spamtex needs to be addressed and I assume it will be in November. I am concerned about lists like the auzituck for different reasons. Old ships shouldnt be obsolete but there is a fine line behind drumming up demand for reprints and creating a meta that's very frustrating for people that cannot buy the ship.

Aces high is a great casual format and I hope they support and create other modes that are fun for all skill levels. 2.0 has a higher learning curve and modes like this make it easier for new people to get comfortable playing the game in stores.

On a side faction locking is bad. There are valid reasons people need to do it but it shouldnt be glorified. It doesnt matter if its x wing,legion, gw, magic, or even maulifax for that matter. If you tie yourself to a faction your going to be disappointed and frustrated (red deck doesnt always win, some armies get supported way more than others).

I like that the v wing has tie upgrades and I hope that trend continues.

52 minutes ago, reqent said:

Overall I think x wing is doing as well.

Hyperspace is great

Extended is okay. Spamtex needs to be addressed and I assume it will be in November. I am concerned about lists like the auzituck for different reasons. Old ships shouldnt be obsolete but there is a fine line behind drumming up demand for reprints and creating a meta that's very frustrating for people that cannot buy the ship.

Aces high is a great casual format and I hope they support and create other modes that are fun for all skill levels. 2.0 has a higher learning curve and modes like this make it easier for new people to get comfortable playing the game in stores.

On a side faction locking is bad. There are valid reasons people need to do it but it shouldnt be glorified. It doesnt matter if its x wing,legion, gw, magic, or even maulifax for that matter. If you tie yourself to a faction your going to be disappointed and frustrated (red deck doesnt always win, some armies get supported way more than others).

I like that the v wing has tie upgrades and I hope that trend continues.

im faction locked as scum. u miss out on stuff but specialising in probably the most versatile faction is so bad.

45 minutes ago, Greedo_Sharpshooter said:

im faction locked as scum. u miss out on stuff but specialising in probably the most versatile faction is so bad.

Just to clarify the way your approaching playing one faction is fine. You've accepted that the trade off.

When people dont accept that they are setting themselves up to be disappointed. There are people who would be happier if they just tried rza-2s or republic or separatists instead of leaving the game if their squadron pack isn't good enough.

35 minutes ago, reqent said:

When people dont accept that they are setting themselves up to be disappointed. There are people who would be happier if they just tried rza-2s or republic or separatists instead of leaving the game if their squadron pack isn't good enough.

Emotional attachment to your faction and its thematic/lore identity is valid.

FFG is paying an arm and a leg for the license. If you got into this game because its a star wars game, and your favorite ships are the oldschool RZ-1s, its really on FFG for making them not satisfying to the players who gravitate towards them, rather than on you for 'sticking to the wrong faction.'

So faction locking is completely normal and expected behavior. It may not be ideal for comp play, but it... really should be expected because it happens in every game with a major faction component that have lots of theme and identity, forget about a game where like... that is one of the biggest selling points.

Even highly competitive video-games get this right, and deliberately try to tailor factions or whatever to the people who would want to play them. Failing to fulfill that player fantasy is just a fantastic way to hurt your game for no reason.

One of the examples you used, Magic, is actually a prime example of a game where faction locking is super healthy and actively encouraged by the company due to the beneficial effects it has on player retention due to players investing part of their identity into the game. I mean... I own a White Mana Symbol T-shirt in my collection of nerdy shirts next to my Rebel one.

I love how Ajani is the only Planeswalker who has their life together every other one is just a complete walking disaster while Ajani is just nice and competent and helpful, to the point where they kinda comically had him go through an 'emo red-white' phase which didn't stick because the core of his character is that he is the only sane man lion-man among a sea of neurotic crazy wizards. Talk about using your iconic characters in faction to encourage your players to build an identity around it! I also love how he mechanically focuses on the 'buffer' archetype of white, which is my favorite part of its color pie, and I like how even if in a given set White isn't about the power of turning some rando into a hero able to go toe to toe with a dragon, it will always be a part of standard or modern that white COULD do this.

Or, to put it another way: If your game doesn't allow players to safely faction lock, it implemented faction locking incorrectly. From 40k to MTG, to even oldschool L5R (Which didn't just have factions, but full blown subfactions. Unicorn Battle Maidens, Scorpion Ninja, Crane or Dragon Duelists, or Mantis Kitsune Honor Summoners were crazy popular sub-archetypes that played rather differently from their main factions, and the game had SO MANY factions) and Netrunner (You could, in fact, be 'An Anarch Player' or 'A Jinteki player.' In fact, Jinteki was a super popular faction to faction lock despite being bad, because it had a lot of support and did a good job of making the players who liked the faction feel good about it even when the lost, until Employee Strike was printed at least) allowed faction locking. Its just... super normal to faciton lock, it is an intended 'feature' of the game to the marketers.

34 minutes ago, dezzmont said:

Its just... super normal to faciton lock, it is an intended 'feature' of the game to the marketers.

It certainly a hook and something that they exploit. Game designers push stuff that people are less attached too (separatists) while more popular factions aren't always as strong (40k is notorious for this eldar were ascendant 6-8 edition). Look at the jumpmaster who cared about that or the scurrg in 1st and they were powerhouses.

With mtg do you actually only play mono white except when ajani is red white or is pictured on a green card?

I get 40k because of the expense but they push allying so hard. You cant tell me that the dev's only want you to pick grey knights and that's it.

When I started playing x wing the majority of players that I knew were collecting everything. That was the beauty of the game (it felt very affordable, we were naive). Once scum came in a lot of people switched to scum and their faction or decided to keep with the OT factions (scum has units from all 3 ages).

Ironically 1st edition was better for mono faction. 1 out 3 means if your on the bottom your only a wave away. With 2nd its brutal to try mono faction. First order has gotten identical support to scum and resistance (technically less as no pods). The PT factions are getting love because they are really popular (something I never thought would happen after the phantom menace but clone wars comics and cartoons were great).

I understand the sentiment I totally get it. I just feel its destructive. Ffg kind of stated that we would never need to buy out faction they never said it was smart.

Mono faction was impossible in 1e if you wanted to have every option. Some of the most desirable cards were faction locked for vast portions of the games life cycle.

1 hour ago, All Shields Forward said:

Mono faction was impossible in 1e if you wanted to have every option. Some of the most desirable cards were faction locked for vast portions of the games life cycle.

Agreed that's kind of the point I've been making that monofaction play can be really frustrating. You have commit to very narrow self contained options (miranda doni, dengar).

In 2.0 imagine if concussions bombs dominate the meta from now till January. Other factions get them in a card pack (that probably includes stuff from other factions) in March after a point adjustment.

If you go monofaction you can miss the optimum time to use an upgrade. More importantly you also miss out the opportunity to realize fo salad is more fun than say rebel beef. In my case I realized that the mix of aces and beef that republic offers is unique.

2 hours ago, reqent said:

With mtg do you actually only play mono white except when ajani is red white or is pictured on a green card?

I will splash green sometimes, and in very rare cases where they do a fantastic job with a set I might jump out of the color entirely (wooo Dimir!) but MTG is a gold standard in allowing you to strongly identify with a color.

That said, while its very obvious, it musn't go unsaid MTG's system is VERY different and naturally lends itself less hard to 'faction locking' than a minis game due to the significantly reduced cost of individual cards and packs, the fact boosters come with various cards, the existence of starter decks, and in the case of LCGs the fact that the products are priced at a point where I don't terribly mind if I only collect cards for one corp and one runner, but I get all the cards for other factions if I want to experiment (On top of the fact EVERYONE spends influence and learns how cool everyone else's toys are).

So MTG has an 'easier job' than wargames, which notoriously faction lock players extremely hard just because of the time (when you gotta paint em), money, and storage investments.

2 hours ago, reqent said:

I get 40k because of the expense but they push allying so hard. You cant tell me that the dev's only want you to pick grey knights and that's it.

Well firstly remember for most of the game's history you couldn't ally. 40k managed to handle making most of the factions feel supported each edition (Sorry Nids, Crons, and ESPECIALLY Sisters of Battle!) with new stuff and new rules for the old stuff. Obviously structurally 40k has an easier time with edition updates as they don't need to release a ton of new cardboard and can just cram new rules in the codex if they wanted to do the equivalent of printing Stabilized S-foils to backfill a reason to use cannons onto the B-wing, and with the datasheets system they can even do it mid edition now, but it still wasn't the norm for most of the game's history to ally.

Secondly, and more critically, allying (and color splashing) is actually a really sneaky way to get the benefits of faction locking players, while also encouraging them to buy new shinies from other factions. In X-wing, if I want to start another faction, my old faction is 'dead' for all purposes with the new one save generic upgrades. In 40k, if I think Tau crisis suits are HECKIN COOL I can just... buy a crisis suit and shove it in its own detachment!

And that serves as a good way to 'branch' to other factions: I thought Eldar rangers are cool as heck (But I am trash and also own more scouts than full tactical marines, so eldar rangers were flat out targeting me), so I got some, and that lead me to get enough eldar to run a full 500 point detachment with troops and an HQ so I wouldn't lose any command points, and now I could play Eldar combat patrols and then oh look aspect warriors are cool too...

So despite being 'faction locked' to Space Marines and Nids for like... 90% o the game's history, that single option 'unlocked me' despite myself still holding a strong identity as a Smurph player. It was supremely clever, especially as this allows every new release to be for every player, and allowed them split factions like Grey Knights and The Inquisiton, and to make 'mini' factions that would be hard to realize as full factions, like Imperial Knights (Though it is also cool they made sure you could run Knights only if you were a goober). This isn't even mentioning how it increased the amount of heavy support, elite, fast attack, and HQ models that could be sold because now due to the detatchment specializations AND the fact you got more than one most games meant you no longer were limited to just 3 crisis suits or whatever, and players dipping their toes in could just jam as much of the 'flashy' stuff in as they wanted.

If X-wing normalized epic (which basically allows faction mixing with 'team play' by yourself), or had something like '66 points can be a single secondary faction' in extended, it would get a lot of those benefits, and maybe people would be chomping at the bit to try Jango Fett+Rebels, or running Krennik+Tarkin in a Gunship list.

Of course that is sorta akin to me wishing for a pony, because I doubt that would ever happen (The '66 points from another faction rule, epic being more normalized seems inevitable to me for many reasons). Its just important to note that the ally rules are a very clever way for GW to have its factional cake, eat it too, and look like the good guy. It was just such a galaxy brain genius move I am actually still impressed by it.

2 hours ago, reqent said:

I understand the sentiment I totally get it. I just feel its destructive. Ffg kind of stated that we would never need to buy out faction they never said it was smart.

To be fair, I don't think many people are tooooo angsty about out of faction upgrades yet. It 'helps' that most upgrades in X-wing are uh.... bad....

I also agree it is starting to get destructive. But it isn't exactly 'self destructive' because, again, its critical to remember this is a branded game and part of the appeal is specifically theme and part of that thematic appeal is being able to fly things that you really identify with. FFG... really should know better than to expect people to be super down to faction hop from the OT trilogy factions and should have had a better plan for handling this situation while still providing lots of support to the PT faction, because to be clear, it needs it.

One can recognize that the PT definitely needed WAY more stuff, and not faction hopping would never be optimal, while also recognizing the current situation is... unacceptably bad.

I also doubt this is a 'we want as much as them' situation. Most OT players were overjoyed by the absolutely tiny amount of content in H&A. Its more the uncertainty, to paraphrase Fig again, "People want to know there is a future." They don't just feel left behind, they feel forgotten.

So while a formal roadmap isn't realistic, it probably would 100% solve this situation to, again, just either 'hey we are going to try to get 1-2 rebel, empire, and scum product a year that has a bunch of new faction specific cards, we don't know exactly what it is but we are gunna do it.' I WANT cardboard, but I would be OK with just knowing an aces pack is coming roughly every 6 months.

"Whispers of OT stuff on the wind" ain't gunna cut it here. That isn't... good marketing, a huge part of a marketing is to correctly set expectations because when your customer base has to set them themselves... bad things happen.

2 hours ago, reqent said:

(something I never thought would happen after the phantom menace but clone wars comics and cartoons were great).

PT showed us the awesome might of great transmedia, that is for sure!

11 hours ago, 5050Saint said:

They could probably see a drop, true. FFG clearly thinks their ability is very strong, but the community has not bit on that. Back when you could get Ric Olie at 42, why would you have even bought a Handmaiden. At launch, they actually cost more than him.

If the N1 had a native evade action, they'd be better, but having to go full throttle to even consider the ability is rough.

I haven't seen anyone use these well.

2 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

I haven't seen anyone use these well.

I've never seen them played at all.

It's been so long since I've looked, but as far as I remember the Handmaiden mechanic just doesn't translate into a solid tactic and seems a substandard choice at any price. Unless they're cheap enough that you can field stuff to carry the dead weight.

2 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

It's been so long since I've looked, but as far as I remember the Handmaiden mechanic just doesn't translate into a solid tactic and seems a substandard choice at any price. Unless they're cheap enough that you can field stuff to carry the dead weight.

It is more an unwieldy tactic to my thinking (which I suppose is the same thing as being not solid.)

If the Handmaidens could get their evade tokens without needing to do a 3-5 speed maneuver you could better use them as the blockers or screening ships their initiative and the Decoyed condition suggest they be used as. And at 42 points they are rather worth shooting at. The ability sort of depends on the Decoyed ship being worth shooting through the Handmaidens instead of at the Handmaidens.

2 hours ago, Frimmel said:

It is more an unwieldy tactic to my thinking (which I suppose is the same thing as being not solid.)

If the Handmaidens could get their evade tokens without needing to do a 3-5 speed maneuver you could better use them as the blockers or screening ships their initiative and the Decoyed condition suggest they be used as. And at 42 points they are rather worth shooting at. The ability sort of depends on the Decoyed ship being worth shooting through the Handmaidens instead of at the Handmaidens.

That seems a better synopsis, I didn't mean to be quite so down on them.

Possibly, the price where the tactic becomes useful may be too cheap for the natural capabilities of the ship.

11 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

That seems a better synopsis, I didn't mean to be quite so down on them.

Possibly, the price where the tactic becomes useful may be too cheap for the natural capabilities of the ship.

That's something that was being talked about in the T-65 thread wasn't it? Points adjustments alone not being able to fix something. If you drop them any more then you've got some other problem.

It seems to me the Handmaidens need paired with some expensive and deadly large based ship with low agility so they can be the escorts they seem designed to be. They'd still need a better way to get their evade tokens.

23 hours ago, Frimmel said:

It seems to me the Handmaidens need paired with some expensive and deadly large based ship with low agility so they can be the escorts they seem designed to be. They'd still need a better way to get their evade tokens.

Shaak Ti might really help them. She could allow them to potential have two evade tokens and a focus on the initial engagement. I just don't know if the damage output is good enough.

21 minutes ago, reqent said:

Shaak Ti might really help them. She could allow them to potential have two evade tokens and a focus on the initial engagement. I just don't know if the damage output is good enough.

I really like this idea. Have a Maiden decoy Shaak to make shooting either of them a bad choice.

I think what's most interesting/telling to me about the health of this game is that a very few NPE-type things that have been a problem and complaint point from the start remain so to a certain extent. Specifically: the ace problem.

It isn't only aces, but really anything that's phenomenally good at not dying (beef, fortressing, etc.). The problem is that staying alive is way too important in this game and leads to a lot of "non-play" that can be game-warping.

• High initiative has always had a disproportionate advantage.

• Force wielders have always had a disproportionate advantage.

• At-initiative Pre-Maneuver repositioning has always had a disproportionate advantage.

• Quick-disengage regen has always had a disproportionate advantage.

Frankly the cause of all this is the rather shallow and stale object of the game. "Kill stuff, don't die" kind of works except that it really doesn't tell much of a story, doesn't have much of an arc, and gets very very same-y even with a wide diversity of lists. I would dare to say that any other kind of objective (or preferably a variable-objective system) would do more for meta balance than most points adjustments at this point (other than Nantex).

I mentioned this in another thread but I really like the Marvel: Crisis Protocol victory model (though that game has had issues developing a player base due to high barrier-of-entry; that's another matter). In Crisis Protocol the benefit you get from dazing or Knocking Out a character is pretty marginal and usually a pretty difficult way to win the game. There are two objectives you can score points from, usually one that involves area control and one that involves picking up, carrying, or reaching certian items. There's a really nice incentive mix between "fortressing your points" in a power piece like MODOK or Thor and "swarming" the enemies or objectives with niche characters like Black Widow or Okoye. There's a lot more back-and-forth and storyline-type engagement in that game than I feel in X-Wing.

I still think X-Wing is a better game, or at least I like it more, but doing deathmatch after deathmatch after deathmatch just gets old, and the "optimal" strategy bends very strongly toward non-engagement plays. Non-engagement would be a non-starter if there were any other objectives on the board, as your opponent could just grab them up. This would allow a lot less of a premium on things like force, high-initiative, regen, and pre-maneuver repositioning (which frankly should always have been System Phase like the Eta-2 and still should be errataed to be so), since the marginal benefit of those things would be somewhat reduced (though still quite present).

I realize this would be a fairly major overhaul, especially for the competitive scene, but it would do so much for making the game just more fun than it tends to be in practice. And I do realize it's a dogfighting game. That's always been the point. But we need more of a context to put these conflicts in. I really can't think of a single dogfight in all of Star Wars where the objective was nothing more nor less than "Kill as many enemies as you can while staying alive." It just feels like it misses the mark and makes room for too many un-fun playstyles.

To be fair, even with all that said, I think the game is in the best spot it ever has been and Spamtex aside, there's a tremendous diversity of lists, archetypes, and viable pilots and upgrades. It's a beautiful thing to see a game with so much balance. I love it as much as ever. I just always want to see any improvements I can.

57 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

• High initiative has always had a disproportionate advantage.

• Force wielders have always had a disproportionate advantage.

• At-initiative Pre-Maneuver repositioning has always had a disproportionate advantage.

• Quick-disengage regen has always had a disproportionate advantage.

There has always been downsides for a lot of this too. High initiative hurts because it costs more so you can’t bring as many guns. Bad playing can land your ace in serious trouble.

Force wielders also generally get pretty spendy for what they are.

Every advantage in this game has a cost to be paid of some kind. Highly maneuverable aces with reposition are not flying around in Super tanky chassis (ok except for Boba....)

On 10/7/2020 at 3:01 PM, dezzmont said:

Emotional attachment to your faction and its thematic/lore identity is valid.

FFG is paying an arm and a leg for the license. If you got into this game because its a star wars game, and your favorite ships are the oldschool RZ-1s, its really on FFG for making them not satisfying to the players who gravitate towards them, rather than on you for 'sticking to the wrong faction.'

I know players who are single faction, and they’re frustrated with the lack of rebel content. I feel for them.

I probably would be one or two factions only if I was coming into 2.0 brand new. I just got used to the “everything” model of 1.0 and it’s been easy to stay that way with only some factions getting love (although I don’t have all the separatist stuff).

Here’s to hoping the rebel squad pack does a lot of good for the faction.

14 minutes ago, ScummyRebel said:

There has always been downsides for a lot of this too. High initiative hurts because it costs more so you can’t bring as many guns. Bad playing can land your ace in serious trouble.

Force wielders also generally get pretty spendy for what they are.

Those can't be taken as given. A lot of people feel that most higher initiative ships are underpriced, and also that the force is underpriced. Given the rounds of nerfs, It's clear there's been a lot of time in X-Wing where it's true the costs paid by folks with these advantages (High Init, Force, Pre-Dial Repositioning, Regen) have been too low given the benefits provided.

That is to say, disproportionate advantages. Not instant win, but an advantage out of proportion with the in-game cost.