Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
If only GW could be trusted with their rules writing. They paid so much attention to Pask and Tank Commanders and have not written the normal officers or FAQd them the same way. If they could be trusted then I'd say we're good to go.

If you look at the index, the wording of the Tank Orders mechanic had such restrictions already worked into it with explicit keywords. The FAQ was the result of an inconsistency in either Pask's rule or the Tank Commanders. The FAQ was to make them both the same.

There is no such restriction implied in the Infantry Commander orders, except perhaps the vague first sentence (debatable), which is devoid of Keywords and therefore not binding in regards to who can do what to whom.