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.

Just wanted to clarify if deep striking from ongoing reserves was possible ,one of the players in our group insists he can deep strike his flyers after they go into ongoing reserves. But i thought deep strike was on declared when you actually deploy before the games starts and that ongoing reserves had to come in from your table edge. On the same note ongoing reserves would not be able to outflank correct?

The only difference between normal reserves and ongoing reserves, is that units in ongoing reserves automatically show up on their next turn. Any method of deploying from reserves is still allowed.

Interesting question. Ongoing Reserves does not appear to modify the deep strike rules in any way, and indeed count as normal reserves except for automatically coming in the next turn. Furthermore, Deep-Strike mishaps can enter Ongoing Reserves. Consequently, I can see no reason why Ongoing Reserves would prevent deep-striking. It would seem that the player can choose to deep-strike or not when entering reserves - which probably includes entering ongoing reserves.

Notably, you specifically cannot Outflank from Ongoing Reserves (per the Outflank rules).

So if they are treated as normal reserves then a player would have to declare they are or are not entering deep strike mode when the flyer left the table and entered ongoing reserves correct?

Thats how I would read it.

If you want to Deep Strike, you must declare it when you leave the table.

This is what makes rubberhawking with Swooping Hawks actually viable now

 BlueDagger wrote:
This is what makes rubberhawking with Swooping Hawks actually viable now

Nope, Skyleap puts you into regular Reserves, not Ongoing Reserves.

Lol what says that? Ongoing reserves simply states that if a unit reenters reserves duing the game they automatically return next round. I didn't see any exceptions in either skyleap or ongoing reserves for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Son of a b888, you are right. Swooping hawk rules state you reenter reserves just as if you have been in there at the beginning of the game. Just when I thought they were going to see the light of day :(

Skyleap wrote: The squad may then Deep Strike back into play their following turn, exactly as if they had been held in reserve from the beginning of the game...

Ongoing Reserves wrote: If a unit enters reserve part way through the game... the is referred to as entering ongoing reserves.

Anyone see wiggle room there?

There's no wiggle possible. It says as if they had been there since the beginning of the game.

Yeah, it does state that it is the EXACT same situation as if they had been in reserves from the start. I believe it to be a case of poorly chosen words though. I think the person that wrote it meant it in a way as to put it in line with how reserves work in general and forgot about the ongoing reserves thing.

But that doesn't matter. The RAW is too solid here to argue RAI, so anyone sayng that "no, I believe the RAI is exactly as stated" would have a better case than me since there is nothing really "stupid" going on.

So if Swooping Hawks were to Skyleap back into reserve, you had have to roll again to get them back in? Wow, that blows.

I'm assuming that will be fixed in their next 'dex (can't be too far away now, surely).

 Purifier wrote:
Yeah, it does state that it is the EXACT same situation as if they had been in reserves from the start. I believe it to be a case of poorly chosen words though. I think the person that wrote it meant it in a way as to put it in line with how reserves work in general and forgot about the ongoing reserves thing.

But that doesn't matter. The RAW is too solid here to argue RAI, so anyone sayng that "no, I believe the RAI is exactly as stated" would have a better case than me since there is nothing really "stupid" going on.

The rule was written before Ongoing Reserves was a thing. It was also not changed in the FAQ though so they probably did that on purpose to provide balance.