Ban heart pendants, then give everyone the 12 health health back as part of their class (or 8 for T2, 4 for T1).

Compare a sklover with two lockets to a sklover with two trueshots. The trueshot sklover will die to the locket sklover in four Arcana rounds. However, the locket sklover can survive five even against the very high bonus. You can still survive four shots even with just one pendant; just one pendant alone wins the matchup against two trueshot modules. And that's with guns only, and with the additional assumption that you aren't just maxing your bonus out with black kat anyways. And as for ASI, CTR? You can max out those with UVs usually. If heart pendants weren't on the table though, then all the other trinkets would become viable options, and in turn make UVs less necessary. This would be a great way boost to lockdown's fairness, and it would be met with much less backlash than just banning UVs entirely.

Nerf Acheron's swing damage down to Obsidian's.

Neither of these weapons inflict status outside of their charge attack. Their standard swings are the same. Except, the damage on Acheron's is set to match the Gran Faust instead of the other brandishes. Why? Acheron's charge attack doing extra damage in exchange for the lack of status is fine, but the standard swings also having it? This is just obviously wrong.

Buff status chance on Flourish lines from 15% to at least 20%, if not 25.

Setting someone on fire with a Flamberge will not even change the hits it takes to kill them unless they have a weakness. I can poke a +12 HP Sklover/Snarbo striker with a Final Flourish three times, and he'll still be alive. I can poke a sklover with a Furious Flamberge three times, set him on fire, and... he will also still be alive, albeit with a little less health. But that's three swings, on only a 15% chance to actually ignite someone on each one. They should at least have at least a 20% chance; that's one fifth. If you stab a guardian (+2 fire resistance) five times and ignite them, that's almost the exact same amount of damage as stabbing them five times with a regular rapier. At the very least a one fifth, one-out-of-five chance, would be fair.

Even a 25% chance would probably be fair considering all the other pitfalls fire has though. It takes time to burn people, and an additional burns won't stack: they just reset the timer. So on the off chance you get two in a row, the second one doesn't really count, which means a 25% chance wouldn't even really be a true 25. You have a whole 6.25% chance to get two burns in a row. I'm not going to show you all the math, but this would be functionally equivalent to just a 22% chance of burning someone if every second-in-a-row burn didn't count. Against just the guardian shield's +2 resistance, they're going to take just 256 damage when hit with fire, so dealing 22% of that on average, you're adding about 56 damage per swing. Against a snarbo, the Flamberge will deal 51 less base damage compared to FF/BTB. Against a sklover, it will also deal 51 less. And even against a double max pierce UV sklover with two royal jelly bands, it will still 51 less, so an average of 56 more is pretty much right on the money.

Admittedly that's the just damage it does against +2 fire resist though; I don't know if that resistance also lowers your odds of getting a burn in the first place, and there's also the other two classes to consider who will instead take 284 damage from fire. But, considering strikers usually die in three or four hits anyways, a 25% chance is fine. Getting fire on a fatal hit doesn't even matter. But you know what? Even just a 20% chance would make it meaningful, and black kat comes with a medium fire weakness so woohoo, you might be able to screw with that a little.