Yes both SSU platoon orders state that they receive a Reaction Marker. I still lean towards tapierscheisse in that there is no Reaction Marker received too…

I think this one needs a FAQ as personnally I think that both arguments are completely valid.

DoomOnYou72 said:

Based on the fact the ones which say they do now outnumber the ones that don't…

I'm leaning that way now as well. Although, I really want clarification on the Army of One, as it's Move Action still feels like the thread that unravels the sweater. 

As far as Rules As Written, as has been stated certain Orders explicitly state when you get a Reaction Marker, and Army of One is not one of those Orders.

Being similar to another Order that explicitly causes you to gain a Marker does not mean it also gains a marker… to assume such is inference of Rules As Intended.  Gaining a Reaction Marker on that squad is a huge penalty which makes an Order that is already of limited value even less useful.

Aren't the Orders that state they don't gain a Reaction Marker, causing you to do something where you normally would gain one?  Moving would not normally gain one, except when as a result of a Take Action order.

Maine said:

If it said, "The Hero may move 6" as though he had taken a Move Action." I'd be with you 100%. But it starts by saying…

"The Hero immediately takes a Move action."  

Which by very definition, is a Take Action order, IMO. I'm not sticking to it just for argument's sake, as I have no ego about being wrong, and I freely admit it when I am.

Let's look at the two orders which have Reaction Marker rules exceptions:

Blitzkrieg has nearly identical text as An Army of One when dealing with the unit/hero move…

"The ordered unit takes a single Move action" but is followed by this sentence, "The unit does not gain a Reaction marker when given a “Blitzkrieg!” Order like it would when given a “Take Action” Order."

Now, look at how the Smoke Screen Order reads…

"This Order is not a “Take Action” Order and does not add a Reaction marker to the Command Section."

Wouldn't An Army of One state something similar to one of these two if it didn't cause a reaction Marker?  It's either a type of Take Action order which would require an exceptionary rule like Blitzkrieg has, or it's not a Take Action Order which would require text saying so even more so than Smoke Screen, as it is less like a Take Action than any other Special Order except Fire For Effect, which actually has text saying the unit the Radioman is in does gain a Reaction Marker. 

Since I very rarely get to play my Allies, (and even more rarely, their Elite Platoon),  I find it's not a hill worth dying on. I stated very concisely how I got there, via rules, but don't care to belabor the point any further, other than to say. I can easily see this as being "intended" to go either way. The best way to have written it would be to either:

A.) State in the Command Phase rules, "All Orders cause a Reaction Marker unless specifically stated otherwise."

Or

B.) Include text in every Special Order stating they do or they don't. 

If it said, "The Hero may move 6" as though he had taken a Move Action." I'd be with you 100%. But it starts by saying… 

"The Hero immediately takes a Move action."   Which by very definition, is a Take Action order, IMO. I'm not sticking to it just for argument's sake, as I have no ego about being wrong, and I freely admit it when I am.

They pretty much already do. Every Order which adds a reaction marker explicitly states 'Add a reaction marker", and therefore any order which doesn't explicitly state this does not add a reaction marker. Simple!

EDIT: My god, this forum software is terrible. Down with Asp. Quoted bits put in B/I to differentiate.

Trasvi said:

One could argue the inverse and use the exact same argument re: Special Orders which specify, "Does Not add a Reaction Marker" and it would be just as valid, quite possibly even more so, as they also specify they are, "not Take Action" orders which could easily lead one to infer the Special Orders which don't specify they are not Take Action orders are, by your same argued process of elimination, in fact Take Action Orders which require Markers unles. Stated otherwise. 

Not so simple now huh?

I'm not convinced either side is right, I'm just pointing out the counter argument, as it can easily be read into either way, and because it isn't clearly delineated anywhere, reading into it is all we currently have. 

PS I totally agree with your edit. This is the most cumbersome cantankerous forum software I've ever used.