Let me start this response article by stating one important caveat: I absolutely love the game of Warhammer 40,000. I really and truly do. It's one of the few games that has solidly held my attention since I saw it being played at the young age of thirteen. This love and appreciation, then naturally, affects my opinions greatly, and I acknowledge this.
The article really does call into question then the nature of a competitive game. The definitions people used for competitive vary greatly, and this is something I have touched on a few times myself on this blog.
This author, Auticus, narrows down what he feels about the competitiveness of a game. He essentially feels that a competitive game has a very specific set of rules and standards that are used to measure the competitor skill. Auticus gives a good number of examples of competitions that go even farther in terms of standardization, including wrestling and boxing with the idea of weight divisions. To this author, Warhammer 40k lacks the competitiveness due to the potential for a heavyweight to take on a lightweight fighter.
While it is true that folks may see the game of 40k differently, I think that a tournament clearly calls for a higher scope of play. If folks don't want to run into Leafblower, don't enter the tournament. In a sense, people are willing to agree to a set of standards for winning and losing, and they are attempting to demonstrate their skills. Is this not the foundation of competition?
Yes, the rules need some help and tweaks. Honestly, as long as people want to compete at 40k, it stands to be a competitive game.