most of my friends played like that.
they would tell you that they didn't but they did.
they would move their orks just a little bit more than they should, every turn,
and i would ask them to measure every model from that point on, because i was tired of it...
they would field anything that killed you and nothing just because it looked cool or fit a theme.
things got better when more detailed missions and better objectives and so on were introduced in subsequent versions (we started in 2nd ed, and things actually got worse from there imo).
this 6th ed. i am unsure of, as i have not had time to study the rules and am myself only now returning after 10yrs + away from the gaming table.
for me, the fun was always in modeling, painting, imagining the stories, setting up the terrain and missions and plots and so on - basically community and narrative constructively manufactured in a spirit of friendship.
and, when the group that i had around me couldn't grow into these aspects of the game, i basically quit playing, and just did the other stuff on my own for the most part.
in my life, i am not sure of much, but i do know this.
one can operate competitively under a cooperative umbrella (your style)
or one can operate cooperatively under a competitive umbrella (his style - after all, the irony is that he needs your cooperation to be uber-competitive, placing competition above all else...).
i go for the former, and tolerated the latter, but eventually it just wore me down.
not to mention that a couple of rules revisions from gw weren't helping matters - i don't recall the exact versions, been so long now, but the game went from every model counting, model line of sight counting, terrain scale and so on counting, to none of that making a difference, rewarding sloppy aggressive playing styles and skim-an-inch attitudes.
by the way, for those in the know, how does 6th edition stack up here?
is it ma more patient rules set permissive of more thoughtful play and crafted meta-discourse?