Planeswalker Rebalancing

MTG_Mage

With Octagon being the new developer, hopefully they will be open to suggestion to help balance MtGPQ @Brigby

Planeswalkers are NOT created equal. Below is a system that carefully compares each PW values. Only the abilities column is subjective, however even that is explained below.

You can see that some PWs need rebalancing to get within the optimal zone of 13 to 17 which would put all PWs at a fairly close spread of each other in terms of power and still each be unique.

Guide:

MB (-5) = mana bonus total, subtract 5. This keeps the total numbers low and the lowest bonus (original 5) have a total of +5 

C = simply if the PW is 2 or 3 colors then it gets 2 or 3 points, since being multicolor is an advantage

abilities=0-10 (4-1,2-2,3-3, 1subjective)

A PWs first ability is their most used and defining. It is ranked 0-4 with 0-2 being how good, and 0-2 how often its used. 

The second ability is their least important and is worth half as much as the first ability so it is 0-2 total. 

The third ability is rated 0-3 and what is looked at is how good it is and if it is aimed for while playing the PW.

HP

80-89      0

90-99      1

100-109  2

110-119   3

120-129  4

130-139  5

restraints = creatures,spells,supports. If limit is 6+=1, 5=0, 4>=-1

	PW	MB(-5)	C	abilities	HP	restraints	total
1	ajani2	1	2	5	5	0	13
2	ajani1	3	2	5	3	2	15
3	arlinn kord	1	2	4	3	1	11
4	chandra1	0		7	0	3	10
5	chandra2	4		3	1	1	9
6	dovin baan	1	2	6	3	1	13
7	elspeth	4		5	3	2	14
8	garruk	3		3	2	1	9
9	gideon3	4		6	3	0	13
10	gideon2	1		5	2	2	10
11	gideon1	0		6	2	3	11
12	jace1	0		4	0	3	7
13	jace2	4		8	2	1	15
14	kiora	1	2	10	2	2	17
15	koth	2		10	3	1	16
16	liliana3	4		5	3	0	12
17	liliana1	0		6	1	3	10
18	liliana2	4		5	3	0	12
19	nahiri	3	2	8	2	-1	14
20	nichol bolas	2	3	7	5	1	18
21	nissa1	0		8	1	3	12
22	nissa3	2	2	5	3	1	13
23	nissa2	4		8	2	0	14
24	ob nixilis	0		8	3	3	14
25	saheeli rai	6	2	6	3	3	20
26	samut	2	2	6	4	-1	13
27	sarkhan	2	2	5	3	3	15
28	sorin	3	2	8	0	1	14
29	tezzeret2	4	2	7	2	2	17
30	tezzeret1	2		4	1	2	9
		0to6	0/2/3	0to10	0to5	-3to3	total

adjustments to make all PWs between 13-17 points

	PW	new total	change to ability	change to HP	change to mana	change
1	ajani2			-1	1	green +1, hp -5
2	ajani1	16	1			see below
3	arlinn kord	13	2			switch 2 middle abilities and change all to werewolf OR wolf
4	chandra1	13		1	2	secondaries +1 each or +2 primary, hp+10
5	chandra2	13	3		1	buff 1 cost from 9 to 6 and destroy/energize 8 instead of 4,+10hp
6	dovin baan
7	elspeth
8	garruk	13	1	1	1	see below
9	gideon3
10	gideon2	13	1	1	1	white +2, 3 non-ally restricted (alternately white +1 and +10hp)
11	gideon1	13			2	secondaries +1 each or +2 primary
12	jace1	13	3	1	2	see below
13	jace2
14	kiora		0			see below
15	koth		0			see below
16	liliana3	13		1		hp+5 or allow any zombie (up to 1/2/3/4 at levels 15/30/45/60)
17	liliana1	13		1	2	secondaries +1 each or +2 primary, hp +10
18	liliana2	13		1		hp+6 or allow any zombie (up to 1/2/3/4 at levels 15/30/45/60)
19	nahiri
20	nichol bolas	17		-1		hp -5
21	nissa1	14			2	secondaries +1 each or +2 primary
22	nissa3
23	nissa2
24	ob nixilis	15			1	black +1
25	saheeli rai	17	0		-3	nerf all her secondary mana gains, and make her third ability cost 21 instead of 20
26	samut			0		hp -5
27	sarkhan	17		0	2	realot mana bonuses from 11221 to 01341 (WUBRG), -5hp
28	sorin	15	1	0		first ability gives some mana if no creatures (2 +2/creature), hp +5
29	tezzeret2
30	tezzeret1	13	2	1	1	see below

All PW restraints above 6 lowered to 6, and all below 4 raised to 4

This is not a footnote as it is very important that type constraints all be 4,5 or 6. The reason is it allows for better deck creation. 

No deck needs more than 6 of any type, especially creatures since there are only 3 creature slots. This will help new players to not make bad decks with 7 or more creatures.

Creatureless decks with 8 spells / 2 supports are troll decks that are very annoying and uncreative (and almost always are lame Ob Nix or Kiora decks) and creatureless is still doable, but at a 6/4 split.

Ajani:

Buff lightning helix to to target creatures OR PLAYERS, and/or reduce the loyalty to 9, and/or increase damage/lifegain to 8 

Buff reprisal to destroy 6 gems per tier (24 max) and reduce loyalty cost to 15

Chandra2:

her first abiity needs to be buffed to at least the listed suggestion to make her usable

Garruk:

green +1, +5hp

change his pic, and the token creatures he makes with loyalty can have the following abilities: 

-Snake: "when this creatures power is 8 or greater, it gains deathtouch"

-Wolves: "when this creatures power is 12 or greater, it gains trample"

-Beasts: "when this creatures power is 16 or greater, it gains defender"

Jace1: buff 2 to have the spell gain 2 per level (more comparable to kiora's 4) instead of 1 so the spell will gain (or be reduced by) 8 instead of 4

secondaries +1 each or +2 primary, hp+10

1 reduces all creatures power to 0, or target -2/level, or all opponents -1/level

Kiora:

nerf the octopi tokens from 8/8 each to 6/6 or remove trample or reach (applies to crush of tentacles as well)

Koth:

make his third ability 21 instead of 20, raise the cost of his 1 from 6 to 9, consider raising 2 from 12 to 15, buff his support limit from 3 to 4

Liliana1:

an alternate to the above is to move ability 3 to ability slot 2 and 3 makes a support that damages on discard

Tezzeret1:

add to his first ability to give [1,2,3,all] supports +1 shield AND supports in hand gain [1,2,3,4] mana each

blue +1, +5hp

all first abilities are 3,6,9

all second abilities are 9,12,15

all third abilities are 15,18,20,21,24…why 20!? Adjust the 2 at 20 to 21 which are Koth and Saheeli

for reference:

		HP	creature	spell	support		W	U	B	R	G
1	ajani2	130	8	5	4		2	0	0	0	4
2	ajani1	119	9	6	5		3	1	0	2	2
3	arlinn kord	114	7	5	5		0	0	0	3	3
4	chandra1	82	10	10	6		0	0	1	3	1
5	chandra2	99	5	6	5		0	0	4	5	0
6	dovin baan	114	5	8	5		3	3	0	0	0
7	elspeth	114	6	6	5		7	3	-2	-2	3
8	garruk	109	4	10	6		2	0	1	2	3
9	gideon3	115	5	5	5		5	0	0	0	4
10	gideon2	104	5	9	7		2	2	0	0	2
11	gideon1	104	9	6	7		3	1	0	0	1
12	jace1	88	8	10	8		1	3	1	0	0
13	jace2	104	7	5	5		0	5	4	0	0
14	kiora	105	5	8	6		0	3	0	0	3
15	koth	111	10	6	3		-1	-1	0	9	0
16	liliana3	115	5	5	5		-2	4	5	3	-1
17	liliana1	94	9	10	8		0	1	3	1	0
18	liliana2	114	8	5	3		0	4	5	0	0
19	nahiri	102	9	4	4		4	0	-1	4	1
20	nichol bolas	132	5	8	5		-1	3	3	3	-1
21	nissa1	98	10	7	6		1	0	0	1	3
22	nissa3	115	5	6	5		0	3	0	0	4
23	nissa2	109	7	4	5		3	0	0	2	4
24	ob nixilis	119	8	8	8		0	1	3	1	0
25	saheeli rai	118	8	7	7		1	4	1	4	1
26	samut	129	10	4	4		-1	-1	-1	5	5
27	sarkhan	119	9	7	6		1	1	2	2	1
28	sorin	82	10	5	5		4	0	4	0	0
29	tezzeret2	104	6	5	6		2	3	3	1	0
30	tezzeret1	99	5	8	9		2	3	2	0	0

MTG_Mage

I apologise if format is hard to read or understand, in excel it is clearer and color coded or highlighted
Post format is nothing like what I put into the forum

Hateborn

I'd suggest putting the guide before the charts for the purpose of making it easier for people on the forum to translate - having it in the middle of the post will likely leave people wondering what they're trying to decipher.  Just trying to help since you've obviously put a bit of time into this.  

Edit:  Now that I've gone through it, I definitely think that most of the planeswalker changes for mana and abilities would be, at the very least, worthwhile to play test and tweak in the effort of bringing some relevance back to some of the walkers that see a lot less love. 

The only major point of contention I would argue against is the 6/4 limitations you suggest be blanket applied and the logic behind it. 

The first point about it allowing better deck creation is purely a matter of opinion - raising caps will do that, lowering them imposes restrictions and thus reduces the number of options during creation, so it could be easily argued that dropping any limits above 6 to that point would actually hinder deck creation. 

I agree with some parts of your second point, creatures to be specific, but have to argue that by the time a new player is making a deck, they've probably figured out that you can only have out 3 creatures and if they add in 7+ creatures, they'll very quickly realize it doesn't work - being that decks are not permanent, there's no risk to letting them experiment and figure things out, but I agree that we don't need 10 creature slots on any planeswalker since there isn't room to support that many on the field.  Being that the board can support up to 49 supports and that spells are 1-time effects, there's no real need to impose a hard cap for all walkers on those two types, which brings me to the third point and I'm sorry, but it will be a little bit rant-y..

Saying that all creatureless decks are troll decks is woefully misrepresenting creatureless decks, as is implying that 6/4 is every bit as doable as 8/2 for all creatureless decks.  Creatureless Kiora is typically a cycling deck, which is hard to call a troll deck when they've given us Nissa3, who is built around using the very same mechanic to do the same thing, but with even better perks.  Creatureless Ob is combo control meant to use his third ability as the win-condition - it can be annoying to fight, but it's a totally viable deck and the AI tends to pilot it better than any other creatureless deck out there, especially now that it tends to hold out on using his loyalty abilities instead of just popping his card draw.  Just because a deck type can be annoying to face, that doesn't make it a troll deck.  Personally, I'd rather face creatureless Ob than a discard-heavy Liliana 1 with Infinite Obliteration, Demonic Pact, etc... or a Starfield deck, which typically constitutes the spirit of trolling more so than any creatureless deck.  By definition, trolling is intentionally impeding someone else's fun, which is basically what you get when you hit a 6-support Starfield Dovin with Gideon's Intervention, Gideon's Defeat, and Insidious Will all packed into the shell - it's just a deck that says "no" to everything while slowly grinding you and it typically runs something to generate clues and/or servos so you can't just save up and spam support destruction to get rid of Starfield, seeing as it is probably tucked away in a corner and RNG is going to target everything BUT the AI player's Starfield first.

I'll openly admit that I have a dog in this fight - my most powerful deck is undoubtedly my creatureless Bolas Imminent Doom deck, which I can say 100% would not work viably at 6/4, as Imminent Doom requires a lot of spells to build around it effectively.  I slow-leveled Bolas from level 40-60, as I didn't have enough runes left over when he came out to boost him to 60.  I had the deck at 6/4 and while it was technically functional, every creature-based deck I had was easily twice as fast and it would get ran over by decks that spammed creatures or even slow decks if it had a bad draw.  At 7/3, it got better, matching my other decks when I had a good draw and it gained better consistency, as I was less likely to get locked up with supports in my hand.  At 8/2, the deck runs pretty much flawlessly (though, admittedly and thankfully, the AI has no idea how to pilot it - one of my friends came across it in Training Grounds and I watched his match, it was both sad to see it give no real fight while also relieving to know that the AI won't be turn-1 killing people with my deck by hitting a lucky draw order).

So yeah, the 6/4 thing... I'm in favor of the 4-cap minimum side, but absolutely against the hard cap at 6 max.

MTG_Mage

Thanks @Hateborn I have cleaned up the post so it is more readable as you suggested. 

Hateborn

Excellent, it is much easier to read now.  I've updated my first post with my thoughts - the TL;DR version is that I think there are some good suggestions that are well worth play testing, but I strongly disagree with the 6-side of the 6/4 idea.

Kinesia

This is a good place to restart the discussions from and I can see you've included some of the recommendations from previous threads. So cool.

MTG_Mage

I just read your updated post. I see you really didnt like the 4/5/6 restriction on decks LOL. I run a creatureless Ob deck to beat Bolas in the return of the God pharoh event and it beats him everytime, so they have their place. I just find specifically that in all my decks I dont have any that contains more than 6 of any one type. The caps force creative deck building and I think thats a good thing. Note that in my chart that a restriction of 4 or less is -1, 5 is 0 and 6+ is 1 point.

Moving on to other points, I hope you all understand the chart and how it measures every facet of a PW and I included comments on how to get all PWs in the 13 to 17 point range. If anything is unclear, please discuss

For instance, I find that any PW with less than a +4 mana bonus in their primary color will struggle. This is evident in the older PWs so I suggested they all get boosts.

Also why is there such a huge range in PW hit points!? The biggest difference is a whopping 50 HP, which is over 60% more or less HP any way you look at it! Note the suggestions buff or nerf HP so that range is slightly smaller.

QuiksilverHg

While we’re on the subject of card-type limitations, here’s an idea.

Why have them at all? Why not let me build a deck with 10 spells, 10 creatures, or 10 supports?

What if instead we made the restriction, X spells in one turn, x creatures in play at one time (remove the 3-creature cap), x different types of non-token supports on the board (so trials of [black] you can still have multiple of)

Mainloop25

QuiksilverHg said:

What if instead we made the restriction, X spells in one turn, x creatures in play at one time (remove the 3-creature cap), x different types of non-token supports on the board (so trials of [black] you can still have multiple of)

I like this a lot as a way to earn ribbons. 

JopeX37

This is an interesting list, but I think the analysis is flawed for a couple of reasons:

First, the way you classify mana gains as a simple addition problem.  This misses the fact that higher on-color matches are generally far superior to spread out gains.  Take, for example, Sarkhan.  I've played a lot more Sarkhan than most people(hello Harness the Storm/Brain in a Jar combo!), but because he can never make more than 5 off of one match, his mana is abysmal.  Honestly, I rate it lower than the Ori 5/Ob.  Contrast that with Samut, who can with relative ease make 7 mana off a single match.  There's no way those two are equal.  Along those lines, given the plethora of ramp Green has access to across rarities and formats, I'd argue every green walker should be given a +1 bonus on mana.

Along those lines, all colors are not created equally.  As in paper, Blue is obviously the best color in this game.  Green is the clear but respectable #2.  Simic walkers and Rakdos walkers both have two colors but are not in any way equal.  I'd give more weight to those colors if nothing else. 

I'd also be interested in seeing how you broke down the ability rating by walker, as there are certainly some things I disagree with there(Koth, Sorin, N1, Tezz1 all too high; Ob, L2, L3 too low).

Finally, I don't agree at all with the assertion that creatureless decks are troll decks.  In NoP for example, I run 3 different creatureless decks(Kiora Tokens, Ob Control, and DB Energy), none of which involve Cycling, which, fwiw, I hate.  I don't like the idea of making all restrictions 4, 5, or 6.  I like being able to build decks that don't use creatures and 6/4 4/6 splits make that a lot tougher.

MTG_Mage

@JopeX37 using math for all the PW abilities is as fair a way to compare them. Mana bonuses are given -5 to give more weight to the bonuses above the weak mana gains of the original 5.

MTG_Mage said:

For instance, I find that any PW with less than a +4 mana bonus in their primary color will struggle. This is evident in the older PWs so I suggested they all get boosts.

earlier in this thread I addressed that any PW with gains less than +4 has issues and made sure to have all PWs get at least a +4 or +5 to at least one color.
I fully agree that the spread that Sarkhan gives overall poor gains, hence him getting a total mana overhaul.

All colors are not equal, however they all balance out to be of equal power in any few blocks due to WotC paying very close attention to what is in standard format. In paper or MTGPQ all colors are equally powerful, of course depending on what cards you have. I will give blue a slight overall edge in vintage due to counter abilities, but that doesnt exist in this game (insidious will is the closest and there is only one card that does that, so you cant have an all counter deck).

MTG_Mage said:

Guide:

abilities=0-10 (4-1,2-2,3-3, 1subjective)

A PWs first ability is their most used and defining. It is ranked 0-4 with 0-2 being how good, and 0-2 how often its used. 

The second ability is their least important and is worth half as much as the first ability so it is 0-2 total. 

The third ability is rated 0-3 and what is looked at is how good it is and if it is aimed for while playing the PW.

above quote form top post details how I quantified each PW ability. Using that logic I am fairly confident that all PWs will score within +/-2 at most of my assumptions. However this post is to rebalance all the PWs so if you disagree please go into detail and rerate in a post so that all community members contribute and the devs pay attention and hopefully implement these changes.

I didnt say all creatureless decks are troll decks, but lopsided ones with 8+spells are not balanced. See my above post where I even say that I use creatureless decks too.

I still stand by having all card types restrained to 4/5/6, however it isn't much of an issue since basically all PWs released in the last year keep the important two that I feel should be restricted (spells and supports) have kept within that range (except bolas).

julianus

@MTG_Mage

You've put in a lot of work here and clearly given all of this a great deal of thought, and I appreciate the effort you've made. I'm not going to comment generally on the specifics of your system or proposed changes, but I do have some thoughts on the idea of changing the 5 Origins PWs specifically.

The original 5 are weaker than other planeswalkers in a lot of ways, and also cheaper in price, and it's important to note this link and the role they play in the game. They're cheap, to allow new players to more quickly acquire PWs to use - and they're weaker in terms of mana gains, and usually HP, to justify the lower cost. If they were buffed, I feel that would come with a price increase, which is counter to the role they have in the game.

I don't think it's a bad thing that they exist in their current form. They allow for a relatively quick introduction to game mechanics, let newer players participate more fully, and provide an incentive for players to buy better (and more powerful) walkers.

James13

The biggest flaw to the idea of buffing Origins PW is that they always and continue to cost much, much less than their 1 color counterparts.  Bringing them "in line" with more expensive counterparts seems crazy to me.  Unless you are suggesting making them cost just as much as a regular one color walker, but that introduces a whole new barrier to starting play.

Bil

    That's a lot of work you've been doing here, and there are some interesting ideas. The debate around cards limitations is the one I'm most interesting in.
   I deeply agree on the fact that they are a key point to provide a better variety of builds and I think the original design of the creature based walkers should be reconsidered.
   Let's take a look at Ajani 2... He's the only white/green walker and those colors offer a lot of interesting combinations that would involve supports but the 4 supports limitation doesn't allow it. He can handle 8 creatures but who would use 8 creatures in a deck? 
   On the other hand we got Jace1, a monocolored walker that can play 10 spells... 8 supports... And 8 creatures while the combinations are restricted by the single color. 
   The fact is Old fashioned walkers decks can handle a combination of 24 cards, while new ones only admit 17.
   I think 6 cards of a type is enough to build any deck efficiently. So why not a basis of 20 cards for each walker, 6 creatures, 6 spells and 6 supports and 2 cards left to fit to the walkers spirit ( might be +2spells for pure casters,  +2 supports for artificiers or +1/+1 for a balanced one) 
      I also think restrictions could apply as a minimum too... Any deck should at least have 1 creature which would allow players to earn the kill 3 creatures ribbon. So, why not 1 card of each type as a minimum? It might be an interesting option to make any card useful when a deck is built (supports removal, counter spells,  etc...). 
    

MTG_Mage

@julianus
The original 5 PWs need some improvement just to make them competitive, but still will be on the lower end of the power spectrum.
All that is needed is all of them get a +2 to their mana gains (either secondaries +1 each or +2 primary...and I think +2 to primary is the better option) , and HP +10 on three of them.
That still puts them lower than other mono colored PWs, with HP totals still below 100, but it does put them into a new HP category if every 10HP is worth a point in PW weight balancing. The biggest difference between PWs is 50 HP, which is over 60% more or less HP any way you look at it! These suggestions buff or nerf HP so that range is only slightly closer.
Only Jace1 needs a buff on his first and second abilities. His suggested second ability buff is outlined above, but I am not sure what would be best for an adjustment to his first ability (listed some options but would like to hear more ideas).

MTG_Mage

@Bil
I agree. Basically all PWs from the last year or so have a combined creature/spell/support limit below 20 while some of the older ones are as high as 27. If all above 20 were lowered to 20, I would be cool with that.

MTG_Mage

just want to point out that I just looked at all of the beginner/expert/master precon decks, and with exception of 1, All of them have 6 or less of any type of card (nissa1 beginner deck has 7 creatures...I suggest this be changed).

span_argoman

MTG_Mage said:

just want to point out that I just looked at all of the beginner/expert/master precon decks, and with exception of 1, All of them have 6 or less of any type of card (nissa1 beginner deck has 7 creatures...I suggest this be changed).

That's because she starts with only 1 spell slot and 2 support slots at level 1. And isn't the increased deck card type flexibility a form of power boost to the Origins planeswalkers? I don't see why you would advocate restricting them further on this.

You claim that the deck restrictions are a good thing as they will force creative deckbuilding. I venture to say that different planeswalkers having different deck strictures is the real factor that contributes to creative deckbuilding. Or else you could just transplant the same deck template across planeswalkers if their deck limits are similar.

Others have already explained the various reasons why it is unnecessary to restrict ALL planeswalkers to the 6 or less per card type so I won't go into too much detail.

The few planeswalkers who have the increased limits have additional flexibility in how to build their decks. That part is a fact. The part that is debatable is whether the additional flexibility can result in better decks. And while we can have a good idea of how useful it is now, we are not omniscient and hence cannot predict how useful it might be in the future when new cards are released.

And with the model of this game being for new cards to be released every few months,  the value of certain planeswalkers being able to have decks being almost wholly of one card type will fluctuate with each release. I don't see a compelling reason to take this away as yet.

As a counterpoint to the no deck needs more than 6 creatures statement, my QB Nahiri Zoo deck ran 8 creatures and 2 spells. My Koth prior to SOI would also run 7+ creatures to compensate for the unpredictability in mana gains. Yes the battlefield only allows 3 creatures but for various reasons including buffers or consistency, you may want to have more creatures in the deck. This comes back to my earlier point that the value of these deck restrictions will vary with the available card pool.

Also, calling spell-heavy Ob and Kiora decks 'lame' doesn't really contribute to your push to cap each card type at 6. I think decisions have to be made on more solid grounds than certain deck archetypes being lame. And are they really uncreative if they are so different from all the other decks we see?

IM_CARLOS

I disagree on many, many poimts.
First 2 or 3 color is a major factor for a pw. It multiplies  the cards an so the deck building options.
Mana gain can balance this advantage but is only minor priority.
Abilities and usefulness depends a lot from the deckbuild and vis versa. Yes, some abilities are to narrow to make a game, others are nearly always handy.

If I choose a pw I first look for the cards i want to use (for objectives) , that defines colors/pw. Color-combination is far, far ahead of any other points. Compared to hp for instace (0-5 points), I would  rate 2C-PW with 20, while 3C got 27 and 1C get only 8.

But think of an 2c-BG-walker with below an rex in legacy... And say it's the same like BR-pw. 

Sirchombli

We keep talking about packing more than 6 creatures like it's the dumbest idea ever, but I disagree. I have at least 3 decks with 7 creatures in them. They're all consistently strong. My koth likes to kamikaze creatures. My nahiri has a bunch of weenies that like to die a lot. I'm not a new player. I'm platinum and play in a top 10 coalition. Deck building conventions are by no means universal. 

I also enjoy creatureless decks a lot. I like to explore the possibilities of building them with most pws. I personally think that the deck limitations are all pretty well balanced towards the pws character and intended use. 

I think you're correct that all pws are not created equal, but I think that was the idea. 

MTG_Mage

If true PVP were available (vs other human players instead of AI) than PW balancing would be required, not something to be ignored.

These adjustments do not fully balance them either, just makes the gap closer and have them all within a comparable range.
Just compare the +11 mana gains on a two color PW to the paultry +5 on one of the original5. Or how about a 60% health difference, thats 50 HP, for sure the other PW features don't make up for these differences.

PWs need at least +4 in one stat just so that on average they can cast a card every turn. PWs with a low spread of bonuses will get more on average in a cascade, but on the many times a turn is a single match they will barely add to the mana needed for the cards in hand.

So if noone has any other suggestions for any of these PWs, then that means we are all in agreement that the above tweaks will make everybody happy...right?