Yes, you've made your opinion known, thanks.
And I will continue to reiterate it.
The majority of the arguments against a particular power are based upon conjecture, rather than experience. It's like telling everyone to stop driving cars because there's a distinct mathematical possibility that they will get into a collision and die.
If you have multiple playtesters with actual data and results that validate a particular conclusion, I'm all for making a change.
However, all I've been reading amounts to...
"Oh, don't do that! He
might be too powerful!"
"Oh, don't do that! It
might break the game!"
"Oh, don't do that! On a Tuesday, when the moon is full, and a man with a righteous heart says his prayers, a character
might instantly kill his target with that power."
It's like listening to a bunch of soccer moms talking about why they won't let their children go to playgrounds because of all the child-molesters and kidnappers.
There's a human element that's discounted when everyone starts talking about nerfing the rules: the DM. No set of rules is perfect, but the system has a built-in self-correcting element--that guy that makes up the world the players hang out in. Trust your DM's to have the sense and sensibility to 'fix' the rules when they're broken in a game.
Why can't we just say, "Shall we use PH2 in L4e?" and leave it at that? After we've put the book into play, once we discover through experience that a particular power is not working, then we can make a global fix. You might discover that the issue never comes up in actual play, and we won't have wasted all this time and effort discussing the issue, when we could have been
doing something.