I'll leave the other bit as that's already well covered.
But here I again disagree. Many games are designed for competitive play, where the winning is the game. Take Warmachine. It's not objective based, it's about pulling off your Feat at the right time and drubbing the enemy. Page 5 makes that abundantly clear.
Once you introduce objectives, it invites a narrative. What are you fighting over? Why are you fighting over it. Is it just a border skirmish, or is it a pivotal battle in a wider campaign? And once the narrative is invited, that in itself can become the aim of the game, to tell a story, and continue it on to the next.
Yes some people will always play competitively, but 40k and Fantasy are designed for the narrative. That's the sort of game the designers want to play, and hence it's the kind of game they create. It's hardly a cop-out by any stretch of the imagination. To play 40k or Fantasy purely competitively where it's all about winning the battle is missing out on so much more. And this might sound happy-clappy, but win or lose, where the narrative has been there I always enjoy the game, even when I'm hopelessly out matched by my opponents list (history is replete with examples of battles where one side was horribly outmatched in terms of the enemies armanent, numbers or training). With a narrative game this can be written into the scenario with altered victory conditions. For instance, a forlorn hope might only need to breach the walls of the citadel in a couple of places, even though it's wiped out to a man. 40k allows this.
Again I come back to my fundamental point that 40k like Fantasy is a hugely successful game system because it is a crowd pleaser. It appeals to all. To switch to rules written for competitive play changes this, as it attracts a more specific group of players, players which in my case I struggle to enjoy playing against!