I have 6 Ghulams all within 8" of each other. Ghulams 1-5 are in a core link. I want to rejig my links to have Ghulams 1-3 in a link and Ghulams 4-6 in another link. But I only have one command token left. Can I spend a command token to form a haris with Ghulams 4-6? If I do, does that cause Ghulams 4-5 to leave the core link, leaving a smaller core consisting of Ghulams 1-3? Or, does being in the core prevent Ghlamns 4-5 from being added to the haris? So I would need to first cancel the core, then I could form the two links I want but I would need two command tokens? (My take is that Ghulams 4-5 can't join the haris because they're already in a core, and spending a CT to form a link doesn't remove anyone from an existing link. But, I can see a counterargument that CT-to-form-a-link rule doesn't prohibit using models already in a link. Once 4-5 join the haris, they leave the core because they can't be in two fireteams simultaenously.)
you do have a point there. the red box only forbid peripherals/controllers/markers/SuppFire state/etc. to be part of a Fireteam. It also has an additional note that members cannot participate in a Coordinated Order (which is the reason you need to drop the whole team if you want even just 1 model to coordinate with other). Nothing members of other fireteams. So it looks like as long as you don't transfer over the core leader; ghulam 4-5 could hop on to a haris. yes it does (not the CT itself but the Fireteam general rule has that effect which is triggered by "form a link" effect of CT). same page 4 as the red box : A trooper cannot simultaneously be part of more than one Fireteam. So joining a new fireteam would drop him from the old one. But counterargument, the same sentence could be read that being in a fireteam prevent joining a new one. The rules are mixed about how to read "cannot simultaneously". In the case of NFB we do allow to gain a new effect and drop the previous one. Same for Supportware; you "can benefit from only one at a time", and receiving a new one cancels the previous one. So logically, the clause "A trooper cannot simultaneously be part of more than one Fireteam" could let you join a new fireteam and get ditched from the old one. Counterargument: both NFB/Supportware are explicit about that while Fireteam isn't; could mean the Fireteam clause is meant to prevent you from joining a new fireteam.
I did a qick read and I have found nothing which forbiden that, so it looks like you could do it. I imagine: "Lopez, Smith, you are now with Hakim. Jasmín, Zohan, both with me" :D Or something like this :D
Well, the rule that would maybe prohibit it is "A Trooper cannot simultaneously be part of more than one Fireteam." The argument would be that using a command token to create a fireteam doesn't do anything other than create a fireteam - in particular, it doesn't remove anybody from any existing fireteams. So if I spend a command token to put Ghulams 4-6 in a haris, the result is that Ghulams 4 and 5 are now in two fireteams simultaneously, which isn't allowed. I guess the problem is what the word "cannot" means. Does it mean "you can't do something that would make a Trooper simultaneously be part of more than one Fireteam," or does it mean "if a Trooper is simultaneously part of more than one Fireteam, you must choose only one of them and she leaves the other(s)"? (It came up in-game with a mixed JSA fireteam. Shikami, Tankos, Domarus, Kempei, I forget the exact combinations my opponent shifted around.)
Besides the usual RAW hermeneutics, there’s the balance and play questions: -Would allowing hot-swapping troops from one linkteam to another be too powerful (unlikely)? -Would it add enough interesting gameplay options to justify the pain in the arse to explain it?
Rules set limits for what you're allowed to do inside the game, I don't think there's any room for arguing over what "can" means here. If you manage to get in a situation where a trooper is in two fireteams you're breaking the rules and you as a player is expected to not do that. As a funny aside, the rules for cancelling fireteam membership aren't written with specifics in mind either, so if a trooper were part of two teams that trooper would drop from both if they got outside coherency of either leader or if a trooper declared an ARO different from either Fireteam ARO.
This seems right to me. The rules don't provide any mechanism for dropping a member from a fireteam. So if you add a trooper to two fireteams, I don't see a basis for then removing him from one of them. The way I read it, if you do it you're stuck in a situation the rules say "cannot" happen, with no way to rectify it. The implication is that you weren't allowed to do the thing that put you in that situation in the first place. That said, it's weird wording. I don't know any any other rule prohibiting a play by saying that the resulting situation cannot happen (but the wiki won't let me search by "cannot" so I'm not sure). Normally, a rule would say what you can or can't do, not what result you can or can't achieve. So I'm not certain by any means. In this case, it's more a question of whether it's worth the pain in the arse of explaining to the opponent why they can't do it.
