Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Blndmage wrote:
So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?

Because from the perspective of the company, people running local gaming stores, and the wider playerbase that plays in events at these stores, your statement is irrelevant. If you guys aren't buying the new rulebooks, why would anyone in the above groups care what you think? If people like you become the majority, the company needs to shift their focus and strategy or they start seeing a decline in sales. You saw this play out with 6th through 8th. People hated 6th so much that it was the shortest edition ever. 7th was basically just 6.2 so people still hated it, sales dropped, stock price dropped, CEO and a couple board members were forced out and the company went a different direction with 8th. Judging from what we know of their sales, along with tournament attendance and my own anecdotal experience at FLGS stores around the Eastern half of the US, the majority of players are currently happy with the game changing to a more competitive format. That's why you see GW further engaging these people and leaning in that direction.

Why does switching from Power Level mean immediately jumping to the highest investment level of 40k? Why do you need to abandon how you play if Power Level is dropped?
I don't advocate for its removal, but it's not like someone will be forcing you to play the most advanced parts of 40k just because most numbers have an extra 0.
In addition, dropping Power Level means nothing for the Matched Play Only crowd. I don't see why anyone would advocate for the removal of such a small part of the game that costs almost no development time and only benefits people, even if at just in a minor amount.

Toofast wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?

Because from the perspective of the company, people running local gaming stores, and the wider playerbase that plays in events at these stores, your statement is irrelevant. If you guys aren't buying the new rulebooks, why would anyone in the above groups care what you think? If people like you become the majority, the company needs to shift their focus and strategy or they start seeing a decline in sales. You saw this play out with 6th through 8th. People hated 6th so much that it was the shortest edition ever. 7th was basically just 6.2 so people still hated it, sales dropped, stock price dropped, CEO and a couple board members were forced out and the company went a different direction with 8th. Judging from what we know of their sales, along with tournament attendance and my own anecdotal experience at FLGS stores around the Eastern half of the US, the majority of players are currently happy with the game changing to a more competitive format. That's why you see GW further engaging these people and leaning in that direction.

While a gross simplification of the issues and stock price drops of GW and the issues within the company during 7th ed, your point is more or less correct.

The company is beholden to share holders for better or for worse.

Ok, well I guess I'll just stop trying to talk about the game on dakka then. Or anywhere.

 Blndmage wrote:
Ok, well I guess I'll just stop trying to talk about the game on dakka then. Or anywhere.

Or just understand that while your brand of fun, is no more invalid then anyone else, your brand is seen as the dragged along component of the game that is just there because GW has not really removed it yet.
If you wanna rock PL, i mean by all means rock PL, just realize that you are playing with borrowed time as you are the vast minority of players who play the game that way. Enjoy it while you can but dont be shocked when its gone.

 Blndmage wrote:
I literally need a solid week to prep for that.

But why? If you don't use the missions (which are far from essential) the point update is just a simple pdf swap to use the current pdf and the rule changes are a total of 1-2 paragraphs for your faction. You aren't optimizing every tiny fraction of a percentage of win probability from a hardcore tournament list so it's not like you're going to be spending dozens of hours re-calculating every unit's point efficiency to within five significant figures.

Have they tried the same thing with said friend? Yes, that's how they know they don't like it.

Ok. In your original description you had said that they had seen the game played, not played it themselves.

You keep zooming in on just the point vs pl time limits when I'm trying to explain that playing with points brings along a lot of baggage

Why? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use the 0-2 aircraft limit and current GT 2022 mission pack if you use the normal point system?

I shouldn't have to defend that every single time I talk about playing.

You don't. Let me once again remind you that you are in a thread explicitly for discussing normal points vs. PL that started with a premise of "what if GW removed one of the systems". You can complain about this if you post a PL list in the list forum and get people demanding justification for your use of PL, but outside of that if you don't like defending your positions you're free to not participate in this clearly labeled discussion.

Why do you keep invalidating the way we play the game when it's a perfectly valid version that takes nothing away from you?

Because GW wasting space declaring your games Official™ 40k™ Games™ adds nothing of value to anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I don't see why anyone would advocate for the removal of such a small part of the game that costs almost no development time and only benefits people, even if at just in a minor amount.

Because elegance is a game design principle and redundant rules should be removed.

Because needlessly dividing the game and community into different factions is bad.

Because avoiding PL entirely requires convincing people to agree to house rules.

Because the continued existence of PL is temptation for the CAAC faction at GW to try again to make it the default or even only system.

And because even a small amount of development time is a high price to pay for something that adds next to no value for even its most passionate defenders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Ok, well I guess I'll just stop trying to talk about the game on dakka then. Or anywhere.

Or, you know, don't post in a thread clearly labeled as a "what if GW removed one of the point systems" debate if you don't want to debate the removal of a point system. Nobody is following you around everywhere and demanding justifications for your preferences in other threads when they aren't relevant to the topic.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I literally need a solid week to prep for that.

But why? If you don't use the missions (which are far from essential) the point update is just a simple pdf swap to use the current pdf and the rule changes are a total of 1-2 paragraphs for your faction. You aren't optimizing every tiny fraction of a percentage of win probability from a hardcore tournament list so it's not like you're going to be spending dozens of hours re-calculating every unit's point efficiency to within five significant figures.

Have they tried the same thing with said friend? Yes, that's how they know they don't like it.

Ok. In your original description you had said that they had seen the game played, not played it themselves.

You keep zooming in on just the point vs pl time limits when I'm trying to explain that playing with points brings along a lot of baggage

Why? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use the 0-2 aircraft limit and current GT 2022 mission pack if you use the normal point system?

I shouldn't have to defend that every single time I talk about playing.

You don't. Let me once again remind you that you are in a thread explicitly for discussing normal points vs. PL that started with a premise of "what if GW removed one of the systems". You can complain about this if you post a PL list in the list forum and get people demanding justification for your use of PL, but outside of that if you don't like defending your positions you're free to not participate in this clearly labeled discussion.

Why do you keep invalidating the way we play the game when it's a perfectly valid version that takes nothing away from you?

Because GW wasting space declaring your games Official™ 40k™ Games™ adds nothing of value to anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I don't see why anyone would advocate for the removal of such a small part of the game that costs almost no development time and only benefits people, even if at just in a minor amount.

Because elegance is a game design principle and redundant rules should be removed.

Because needlessly dividing the game and community into different factions is bad.

Because avoiding PL entirely requires convincing people to agree to house rules.

Because the continued existence of PL is temptation for the CAAC faction at GW to try again to make it the default or even only system.

And because even a small amount of development time is a high price to pay for something that adds next to no value for even its most passionate defenders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Ok, well I guess I'll just stop trying to talk about the game on dakka then. Or anywhere.

Or, you know, don't post in a thread clearly labeled as a "what if GW removed one of the point systems" debate if you don't want to debate the removal of a point system. Nobody is following you around everywhere and demanding justifications for your preferences in other threads when they aren't relevant to the topic.

How many times are you going to poison this well? The literal thread is titled: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?

 Blndmage wrote:
Ok, well I guess I'll just stop trying to talk about the game on dakka then. Or anywhere.

You're free to express your opinion, but the company and the people who hold the opposite opinion aren't going to put a lot of stock into yours as long it's a small minority of the playerbase that feels that way. No company is ever going to please 100% of their customers. You think every single person is happy with League of Legends? Or MtG? Certainly not, but if 90% like it and keep buying, the company is just going to ignore the other 10%. Eventually, so will the other 90% because they like the game so they don't want to sit around and debate all day with people who hate it.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
How many times are you going to poison this well? The literal thread is titled: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?

Yes, those are the literal words. Everyone with any sense knows that a thread with that title is going to be a general points vs. PL argument by the end of the first page, and the post you started it with was all about the merits of each system and how PL can successfully replace the normal system. And your very first sentence makes it explicitly clear that by "full in on PL" you mean removing the normal points.

I answered the question posed. Then talked about why I enjoy PL and the style of play we use it in.

Then CSB decided to rip me a new one and Hecaton straight up calling me a liar. As stated a few times now, I'm terminally ill and disabled. I have a limited amount of time and energy to spend on 40k.

There are only a few places left to discuss the game and the versions it offers. Dakka being the biggest (and my style of play not being applicable to R/WarhammerCompetitive).

I don't feel like I'm off topic talking about how Power Levels and the mindset around playing it is different from the standard Matched Play.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
How many times are you going to poison this well? The literal thread is titled: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?

Yes, those are the literal words. Everyone with any sense knows that a thread with that title is going to be a general points vs. PL argument by the end of the first page, and the post you started it with was all about the merits of each system and how PL can successfully replace the normal system. And your very first sentence makes it explicitly clear that by "full in on PL" you mean removing the normal points.

Every week he comes up with a new way to frame the points v PL debate hoping that more people agree with him. Predictably by the end of page 1 it devolves into the same arguments that neither side is ever going to budge on. By page 30 it's a trainwreck, the only thing we all agree on is that everyone else is having fun wrong, and the same thread under a new name pops back up again.

 Blndmage wrote:
I answered the question posed. Then talked about why I enjoy PL and the style of play we use it in.

Then CSB decided to rip me a new one and Hecaton straight up calling me a liar. As stated a few times now, I'm terminally ill and disabled. I have a limited amount of time and energy to spend on 40k.

There are only a few places left to discuss the game and the versions it offers. Dakka being the biggest (and my style of play not being applicable to R/WarhammerCompetitive).

I don't feel like I'm off topic talking about how Power Levels and the mindset around playing it is different from the standard Matched Play.

I get it, that sucks, im sorry to hear that. But that is not really relevant to the point of power level as a mode of play.

The balance of 40k, does not really work with PL in a pick up sense, which is a big and i would say major form of play within the world. The granularity of points allow for a more universal accepted balance between units because it works to account for more things where as PL is not.

If you have a set group of people and you always know what the other is bringing PL kinda works fine in that sense. But the idea that PL is some how WAY MORE EASIER to make lists for, and build around is being pretty silly. We have loads of tools to list build, battle scribe being one of them that allows you to make, delete, and remake lists in a matter of minutes. So this idea that PL is some how easier to work with is kinda non sensical. If power level disappeared magically over night, the jump to points is not any measurable level of difficult.
If you played since 4th, then the rules that are "advanced" are not anything new to you or should not be at least.

Actually that made me think what is the argument here at this point anymore? Not just specifically you, but i mean in general what are people even arguing over.

So i really dont get the arguments you are trying to make here.
If you are rocking PL, go forth rock on PL, who cares what people here have to say at that point, you are gonna do your thing and have a good time doing it. But acting like going from PL to points is some monumental under taking is just being dramatic.

I've lost track after 40+ pages of bickering nested quote zigarites.

So show of hands: Who here claims theyd play less in a PL only world?

 Blndmage wrote:
I don't feel like I'm off topic talking about how Power Levels and the mindset around playing it is different from the standard Matched Play.

You're not off topic. But if you want to participate in this discussion you can't claim you're being treated badly because you're expected to justify your arguments.

I appreciate you being honest though, and admitting that PL is about its symbolic status for "PL players" rather than any functional differences between the two point systems. From a functional point of view PL and normal points are just standard point systems for matched play style games and the practical difference between the two is minimal. PL is less accurate because of systemic errors but otherwise they're used exactly the same way. So the fact that you claim PL has some kind of associated "mindset" is an admission that there's more to it than saving a minute of time in list construction or whatever, all of those arguments about its functional value are nothing more than justifications for something you need as a symbol of your style of play.

ccs wrote:
I've lost track after 40+ pages of bickering nested quote zigarites.

So show of hands: Who here claims theyd play less in a PL only world?

100% would, loss of granularity is not something i ever favor in any system.

I think the loss of granularity is exactly what 40k needs though.

It's gotten too big for 1, 5 or even 10 point individual model upgrades.

Set PL to 1PL~= 15 points as a conversion base and adjust from there.

For more models, reduce the PL by 1 each time. For example, of a unit of base PL5 for 5 models, add 4PL for 6-10, add 3PL more for 11-15 models, 2 more for 16-20. As a very very rough thought from the top of my head. You could get 4*5 for 20PL, or 1*20 for 14PL, 2*10 for 18PL, type idea.

 Blndmage wrote:
I think the loss of granularity is exactly what 40k needs though.

It's gotten too big for 1, 5 or even 10 point individual model upgrades.

Set PL to 1PL~= 15 points as a conversion base and adjust from there.

Hard disagree, loss of detail and granularity is what makes the game harder to balance unless you also remove customization and the ability to take different load outs.

Unless you wanna make every thing cookie cutter its fine, but you cant say "Hey this guard squad is 5 PL, and you can take any of the heavy weapon choices" because there will always be a vastly better option. Pointed out units prevent, or help prevent that.

That sytem of upgrading is common and its actually what a lot of people, and i would even boldly say, most people are OK with having. Hell the entirety of 30k revolves around this idea of more granularity, more detail, more actions and more in depth building.

40k is not about a simple streamline.

To your point of "Make 1PL =~ 15 points, well then whats the point of PL because at that point you are just playing with points but with less balance because how do you go about ranking a plasma pistol over a bolt pistol? or over an inferno pistol?
15 points is 1 PL for a powerfist or a TH? Why would not take the TH ever time?

Think of it like trying to measure a board, What if i were to tell you i want you to cut me a 15 and 1/16 inch long board, but the ruler i give you is only in inches no fractions of an inch. Thats the analogy of PL and points, a deeper set of points allows for finer tuning.

It does not work in the upgrade system like 40k has, it works in AoS because there is no upgrade system, you just kit a unit out with a given load out. You cant do that to 40k with fundamentally remaking the game.
And ill be god honest here, if you think thats a good idea, then i think your take on wahts good for the game is horribly horribly misplaced.

 Blndmage wrote:
I think the loss of granularity is exactly what 40k needs though.

Why? 40k is full of cases where the difference in value between two choices is only 5-10 points but it is still clear which one is stronger. And in PL setting all upgrades to zero points creates clear balance issues where one choice from a set is the only viable one if you're making decisions based on on-table strategy. This is strong evidence that 40k does need at least its current level of granularity, if not more granularity to handle things like the issue with 5ppm being the floor for point costs but some 5ppm units being obviously better than others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
For more models, reduce the PL by 1 each time. For example, of a unit of base PL5 for 5 models, add 4PL for 6-10, add 3PL more for 11-15 models, 2 more for 16-20. As a very very rough thought from the top of my head.

Why? Why should model costs scale as you get larger units, especially in a game where buff stacking efficiency already provides plenty of reward for taking large units?

But why do you need to quibble about a 5 point upgrade in a 2k game? It's 0.25% of the list, even for Combat Patrol games, it's only 1%. Are they really worth the trouble balancing things down to 1 point differences? When you can just make all the stuff free and save the hassle.

If it's about the mechanics of specific weapons or what not, maybe they need a redesign if there's always 1 that's better.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I dont wanna be argumentative with you, but how are they not separate categories? You have to make a conscious choice to use that battle demi company just like you have to use one to use PL.

If you dont wanna play with a battle demi company, you just dont use it.

You can't show up with pl army and play vs point army.


Demi company etc didn't require agreeing with them in advance like points or pl does.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:


One word: Crusade. PL absolutely affects me despite not wanting to use it.

Oh so how your life is worse for crusade existing?

Btw you can play crusade with points as well


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
And the fact that competitive gamers see list building as a bigger skill than the actual game. GW in turn oblige with all these nonsense chapter apaproved pamphlets and points updates.

Which seeing list building takes skill of elementary school kid shows why anybody thinking 40k is competive game are lying to themselves.

 Blndmage wrote:
But why do you need to quibble about a 5 point upgrade in a 2k game? It's 0.25% of the list, even for Combat Patrol games, it's only 1%. Are they really worth the trouble balancing things down to 1 point differences? When you can just make all the stuff free and save the hassle.

If it's about the mechanics of specific weapons or what not, maybe they need a redesign if there's always 1 that's better.

Because 5 points quickly becomes 5 points a model on weapons.

Again, i said it before ill say it again but any unit taht has the ability to swap out their weapons is abusive in power levels, rubric example again, i can swap a 10 point item on any model in the unit, how are you going to PL point that unit if an entire squad can take 100 points of extra gear for free? Do you point that unit in PL with the potential gear they can take? Because at that point you now effectivity force someone to take all that gear for the amount of PL it cost.

Its not just a single 5 point upgrade, from the way you are presenting itself in a vacume of just a single model yeah PL works, but tahts not the vacuum we are in.

 Blndmage wrote:
But why do you need to quibble about a 5 point upgrade in a 2k game? It's 0.25% of the list, even for Combat Patrol games, it's only 1%.

Because it isn't just one 5 point upgrade. It's a 5 point plasma pistol, a 5 point power sword, a 20 point heavy weapon, a 5 point hunter-killer missile, 30 point sponson multimeltas, etc. And it's repeated across every unit in your list, until the person who took those obviously stronger choices has a significant advantage over someone who didn't.

(And that's not even counting the big issues, like a Tau player having the equivalent of 3-4000 points in a 2000 point game by loading up on free crisis suit equipment.)

Are they really worth the trouble balancing things down to 1 point differences? When you can just make all the stuff free and save the hassle.

As we've already established, there is no meaningful hassle. 6 minutes to make a 2000 point list with normal points, 5 minutes to make a similar 100 PL list, out of a 3-4 hour game. So yes, it is worth it to have obvious power differences reflected in a unit or upgrade's point cost.

If it's about the mechanics of specific weapons or what not, maybe they need a redesign if there's always 1 that's better.

Some things can't be designed that way. Taking a plasma gun will always be better than not taking a plasma gun if they both cost the same number of points. Taking a power sword will always be better than using the default melee profile. Etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Oh so how your life is worse for crusade existing?

Btw you can play crusade with points as well

Do not be dishonest like this. That quote was in response to someone claiming that I'm not affected by PL, and the fact that to play Crusade I have to either use PL or convince people to house rule in a different point system means I am affected by it. Taking that quote out of context and pretending I'm claiming my life is worse because Crusade exists is blatant lying.

Another example are land raiders you can give them 50 points of gear for no PL increase at all.

You can give predators over70 points of war gera for free and not increase its PL.

fire raptors you can give out 80 poitns of gear for no PL increase,

You see how things like this are a problem? When you extrapolate it to 100 PL lists your able to grant a lot of free things.

I did say it needed review.

Personally I think 40k is too granular for the bigger scale game (over 1,500pts or so).

Part of the reason my group enjoys the way we play is that they don't need to worry about what weapon is theoretically 1% better than another, at the pistol/small arms level. Analysis Paralysis is a thing. And again, I play with kids and neurodivergent folks frequently. We'd all rather model things that we prefer the look of. Proxying can happen.

I play necrons, Gauss Flayers and Gauss Reapers both are free for Warriors, you can mix an match. There are uses for both weapons., Honestly I'm only just looking to play, at least get together for others, some other factions and the sheer array of wargear selections is staggering (specifically with regard to Imperium forces). Total Analysis Paralysis.

We have a player looking at Renegades and Heretics, mostly for the awesome lore,bbut partly because the rules are free and basically static. They somehow get AoC on some vehicles, but otherwise there's little chance it'll have massive shake ups. Legends being basically static really draws folks to them as the last thing they want is to have to keep buying codexes over and over again. We play games with literally the Core Rules pdf and the Legends sometimes.

We both have versions of the game that we prefer, that don't impact the other and are both valid ways to play the game, correct?

 Blndmage wrote:
Part of the reason my group enjoys the way we play is that they don't need to worry about what weapon is theoretically 1% better than another, at the pistol/small arms level. Analysis Paralysis is a thing. And again, I play with kids and neurodivergent folks frequently.

Then don't worry about it, just take the one you like and trust that the point cost is accurate. And it's not like PL solves this, you still have different options to analyze if you're seeking maximum efficiency. The only thing PL changes here is which specific options are the best.

We have a player looking at Renegades and Heretics, mostly for the awesome lore,bbut partly because the rules are free and basically static. They somehow get AoC on some vehicles, but otherwise there's little chance it'll have massive shake ups. Legends being basically static really draws folks to them as the last thing they want is to have to keep buying codexes over and over again. We play games with literally the Core Rules pdf and the Legends sometimes.

None of this has anything to do with PL.

We both have versions of the game that we prefer, that don't impact the other and are both valid ways to play the game, correct?

Your version is supported with the removal of PL and Open™ Play™, just like games like yours worked just fine in previous editions where neither of those things existed.

And, once again, PL impacts the normal game. Crusade is built on it, reserve limits use it. So please stop saying that PL existing has no effect on the rest of us.

Then push GW to actually review PL costs the way we do with broken units and point costs. They don't know there an issue unless they hear about it.

That way, they get adjust as needed to balance with points, and the rest of us can keep playing how we enjoy. There's no need to remove anything.

 Blndmage wrote:
Then push GW to actually review PL costs the way we do with broken units and point costs. They don't know there an issue unless they hear about it.

That way, they get adjust as needed to balance with points, and the rest of us can keep playing how we enjoy. There's no need to remove anything.

PL has inherent systemic problems that can not be fixed by reviewing individual costs. The system is inaccurate by design and can never be correct, the only way it can be fixed is for it to be removed.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Then push GW to actually review PL costs the way we do with broken units and point costs. They don't know there an issue unless they hear about it.

That way, they get adjust as needed to balance with points, and the rest of us can keep playing how we enjoy. There's no need to remove anything.

PL has inherent systemic problems that can not be fixed by reviewing individual costs. The system is inaccurate by design and can never be correct, the only way it can be fixed is for it to be removed.

I could say the same about points, considering that PL is a core part of the game system (thank you for reminding me), and points is actually the added tally system, shouldn't it be the one that would be removed?

Considering the constant time spent adjusting things, at times in 1 point increments when just adjusting the PL would be easier and fit with the rest of the game as points are the odd one out now. We used PL in 8th too, but I played much less as the bigger board size was a real impediment.

 Blndmage wrote:
Then push GW to actually review PL costs the way we do with broken units and point costs. They don't know there an issue unless they hear about it.

That way, they get adjust as needed to balance with points, and the rest of us can keep playing how we enjoy. There's no need to remove anything.

When will GW adjust the rules around how much CP Stratagems and reinforcements cost to not be around PL?

When are you going to stop asking for plasma pistols to not be any better than las pistols to fix your broken pts format? It's not that it couldn't be done, but the amount of work it'd take is silly. You'd have to give a special rule to Sergeant bolt pistols and Sergeant las pistols to account for the worse and even worse profile. Giving them a cost of 1 and 2 pts is much easier.

PL costs for expensive upgrades is silly, because the moment you realise that upgrades should cost something you realise that having more granular cost upgrades is better since then you can differentiate between weapons with clear but not necessarily large amounts of value like upgrading an Infantry Squad Sergeant to have a plasma pistol instead of a las pistol.

 Blndmage wrote:
I could say the same about points

You could say it but you would be wrong. The normal point system does not have the systemic errors PL has.

(Perhaps you are making the mistake of thinking that a systemic error is merely an error that happens often, when the actual definition is an error caused by inherent inaccuracy in the measurement system?)

considering that PL is a core part of the game system (thank you for reminding me), and points is actually the added tally system, shouldn't it be the one that would be removed?

Lolwut? No. The normal point system is the system that 40k has used for the majority of its existence, the system the wargaming industry as a whole uses as its standard, and is by far the most common system used by 40k players. And, more importantly, PL is the system that has inherent systemic flaws and can not ever be fixed. So no, we should not instead remove the system with more potential for accuracy.

Considering the constant time spent adjusting things, at times in 1 point increments when just adjusting the PL would be easier and fit with the rest of the game as points are the odd one out now.

Adjusting the PL would be easier but it would also be incorrect. Your argument here makes about as much sense as claiming that balance updates would be easier if GW made all units cost one point each. Yes, it would be easy to do that, it would also be stupid.