Interested in seeing what everyone thinks. I assumed that a campaign would be every man for himself, but it seems that some have mentioned a more structured version, say Imperials vs. Chaos. I am going to try to have a group of us run/administer this if we can get it going, and no promise that "majority wins" in this. I think the GM's should consider what would work best, but that being said I think we should heavily weight community opinion.

So, that being said - in the coming campaign - if you are interested in taking part, how do you think it should be structured? Every man/army for himself? Or more of a group effort (e.g. Imperials vs. Chaos, or broken down further to have possible Cron/Ork/Nid forces on their own)? Feel free to expound on the reasons for your opinion below. Just as some food for thought, some pros/cons of the options:

"Every man for himself"
-Allows a deeper layer of involvement, with resource expenditure to develop and upgrade territories (as possiblebut not definite components of the campaign). This is harder to account for in a "team" concept.
-Your success is truly your own, each man's success dependent only on himself.
-Allows more options for match-ups/battles since in a team concept you cut in half (or thirds, depending on how many factions we have/allow) your possible opponents.

"Team concept"
-More easy to absorb player attrition (or even incorporate new entrants) if needed
-related to the above, but players with personal emergencies or other conflicts would have less negative impact on the campaign progress
-Probably slightly easier on the record keepers
-Possibly easier for newer/less experienced players to take part without risking being blown off the map if you hit a string of tough results.