Points vs No Points

Here is my view of the points vs no points debate:

Points: Advantages: Starting reference with which to roughly balance games.
 One-off games between strangers are easier (bring X points).
One player does not have to provide miniatures for both sides ("but I don't
have an ADS vehicle." "Oh. The whole scenario revolves around having 3 of
them.")
Scenarios are easier to balance (you have a starting point, so the balance
only need to be tweaked). The relative value of a unit can be determined
(estimated) quickly. Disadvantages: Players depend on points to balance the
game. This ignores scenario imbalances, the effects of terrain, etc. Holes and
weaknesses in the point system tend to be exploited. Players sometimes feel
"cheated" or that the system is broken due to assumptions in the point system.

No Points: Advantages: Encourages (enforces?) scenario based games (victory
conditions of the scenario determines balance). No squabbling (whining?) about
the points or how the point system is broken. Flexible. (No "I'm sorry, you
are 12 points over, you have to remove a
unit.")
 Less mini-maxing (not none, but less).
Usually leads to more satisfying games (better scenarios). Disadvantages: Very
difficult for starting players (if no one has played the game before, it is
difficult to set up a satisfying game). Scenarios take longer to develop and
balance (no starting point. This should decrease with experience). It may be
diffucult to determine the relative worth of a figure. Games often take
longer, because players have to "wait and see" the
strength of opposing figures/units (which may be balanced or not), so
are more cautious (rather than trust the point balance).

Note: I have played both and enjoyed it. I have designed scenarios with both
and enjoyed it. So, this is not a bashing of one or the other, just a
recognition of the strengths and difficulties of each approach.

---