<p>Yes, <a href="http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Twilight%20Imperium%203/ti3rules.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the rules</a> (pg. 12) refer to the term &quot;invasion&quot; as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Hostile Landing (also called an &quot;Invasion&quot;):</strong> A player lands units on a planet containing one or more of an enemy player's Ground Force units. This will result in an Invasion Combat during the Invasion Combat step.</p>
<p><strong>If a player lands units on a planet that is controlled by an opponent, but does not contain any enemy Ground Forces</strong>, the planet falls without resistance.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are only three types of landings, Friendly, Neutral, or Hostile (&quot;Invasion&quot;).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-23T13:35:45.173Z
You can also see page 27, Ground Forces, under Controlling a Planet.
user1873
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-23T14:27:02.713Z
Great, that's what I was looking for!
Aviad Ben Dov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-23T13:25:50.210Z
2013-08-23T13:25:50.210Z
2020-06-17T09:01:24.697Z
user1873
<p>I think that it would count. I agree that the <em>invasion Combat</em> is simply a part of the action of <em>invasion</em> and that the Ground Forces exist after the invasion has begun.  </p>

<p>I think that this is partly supported by the <a href="http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Twilight%20Imperium%203/ti3faq.pdf" rel="nofollow">FAQ</a> (page 5):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Q: Is landing on a neutral planet considered an invasion for the purposes of “Imperial Peace”?</em></p>
  
  <p>A: Yes. Planetary landings on neutral planets are considered invasions
  for the purposes of Action and Political Cards.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This answer shows that <em>invasions</em> still count even when <em>invasion combat</em> does not occur.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-23T04:10:30.227Z
I agree that an "invasion" occurs, but is it considered "invasion with a ground force on the planet?" I would assume it does, but can we try to get a clearer ruling on that?
Aviad Ben Dov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-23T01:20:18.093Z
2013-08-23T01:20:18.093Z
amcintosh
<p>The rules specify that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Ground Forces destroyed by bombardment are removed immediately, do not receive return fire, and will not participate in the upcoming Invasion Combat.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>However, some political cards, action cards and special abilities refer to "When invading a planet with a Ground Force on it". So, if one invades a planet with Ground Forces on it, bombards them to death and then have a successful invasion, does that count for "when invading a planet with Ground Forces on it"?</p>

<p>(Sure, the Ground Forces did not count for the <em>invasion combat</em>, but they might count for the <em>invasion</em> itself as a whole..?)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-23T13:02:56.097Z
"Some cards and abilities" you might want to list the names of those cards/abilities. The rules might differ in how bombardment and destroyed ground forces are handled. I.e. Dacxive Animator and Mechanized Units) Are you asking to see if the rules are consistent among cards/abilities or did you have a specific example in mind?
user1873
<twilight-imperium><twilight-imperium-3rd-edition>
Do bombardment counts for "invading planets"?
Aviad Ben Dov
# Do bombardment counts for "invading planets"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-08-22)

The rules specify that:

> Ground Forces destroyed by bombardment are removed immediately, do not receive return fire, and will not participate in the upcoming Invasion Combat.

However, some political cards, action cards and special abilities refer to "When invading a planet with a Ground Force on it". So, if one invades a planet with Ground Forces on it, bombards them to death and then have a successful invasion, does that count for "when invading a planet with Ground Forces on it"?

(Sure, the Ground Forces did not count for the *invasion combat*, but they might count for the *invasion* itself as a whole..?)

**Tags:** twilight-imperium, twilight-imperium-3rd-edition

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: "Some cards and abilities" you might want to list the names of those cards/abilities. The rules might differ in how bombardment and destroyed ground forces are handled. I.e. Dacxive Animator and Mechanized Units) Are you asking to see if the rules are consistent among cards/abilities or did you have a specific example in mind?  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2013-08-23. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

Yes, [the rules](http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Twilight%20Imperium%203/ti3rules.pdf) (pg. 12) refer to the term "invasion" as:

> **Hostile Landing (also called an "Invasion"):** A player lands units on a planet containing one or more of an enemy player's Ground Force units. This will result in an Invasion Combat during the Invasion Combat step.
>
> **If a player lands units on a planet that is controlled by an opponent, but does not contain any enemy Ground Forces**, the planet falls without resistance.

There are only three types of landings, Friendly, Neutral, or Hostile ("Invasion").

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You can also see page 27, Ground Forces, under Controlling a Planet.  
> **username_0**: Great, that's what I was looking for!  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2013-08-23. Score: 0

I think that it would count. I agree that the *invasion Combat* is simply a part of the action of *invasion* and that the Ground Forces exist after the invasion has begun.

I think that this is partly supported by the [FAQ](http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Twilight%20Imperium%203/ti3faq.pdf) (page 5):

> *Q: Is landing on a neutral planet considered an invasion for the purposes of “Imperial Peace”?*
>
> A: Yes. Planetary landings on neutral planets are considered invasions
> for the purposes of Action and Political Cards.

This answer shows that *invasions* still count even when *invasion combat* does not occur.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I agree that an "invasion" occurs, but is it considered "invasion with a ground force on the planet?" I would assume it does, but can we try to get a clearer ruling on that?  

---

