My opponent was based on Kessel, and after having won space combat, and lost ground combat against her, she still had 4 rebel troops in the system, while I was controlling space with two star destroyers and a few TIEs. At the end of the turn, she deployed Rebel Transports in Nal Hutta and another system (The one below Kessel. The name eludes me.). Next turn she transported another 8 troops and 2 Airspeeders into Kessel.

As I have understood the rules, both Transports dies due to Space Combat, but since there are no opposing imperial forces on the ground, her troops just joined the others, and I ended up losing the game two turns later, after having lost another space battle.

I don't see a problem here, as fortifying your base is a perfectly legit strategy, but it does seem ... weird.

You would initiate a round of space combat, if you did not destroy the transports, they would have to retreat or be destroyed.

That being said the numbers seem off, Two transports can take 8 units, in your above scenario she moved 10.

Sorry. That was a typo.

She deployed two transports on Nal Hutta and one on the other planet.

You would initiate a round of space combat, if you did not destroy the transports, they would have to retreat or be destroyed.

That being said the numbers seem off, Two transports can take 8 units, in your above scenario she moved 10.

Correct. But I think I see the issue being hinted at. Even though the transports would be defeated in the space combat,, does that prevent the ground units from landing?

As far as I can tell, it's a legitimate strategy to land more ground units even though the transports are on a suicide mission. The capacity of the transports only matters to the ground units if they're retreating or in a destroyed system.

So if a transport (or any other troop carrier) is destroyed in the first round of space combat, the embarked troops are not destroyed but are allowed to land? That doesn't really make sense. If your ships can't get past a blockade in space, how can they land troops on the surface?

So if a transport (or any other troop carrier) is destroyed in the first round of space combat, the embarked troops are not destroyed but are allowed to land? That doesn't really make sense. If your ships can't get past a blockade in space, how can they land troops on the surface?

Yeah, I see what you're saying. If it were me, I would have said that the transports need to survive the first round of space combat in order to land the troops.

But perhaps FFG considered that and found it either too complex and/or unbalancing.

So if a transport (or any other troop carrier) is destroyed in the first round of space combat, the embarked troops are not destroyed but are allowed to land? That doesn't really make sense. If your ships can't get past a blockade in space, how can they land troops on the surface?

They land before the 1st round of combat, dropping their troops before they are engaged by the enemy fleet.

So if a transport (or any other troop carrier) is destroyed in the first round of space combat, the embarked troops are not destroyed but are allowed to land? That doesn't really make sense. If your ships can't get past a blockade in space, how can they land troops on the surface?

They land before the 1st round of combat, dropping their troops before they are engaged by the enemy fleet.

Maybe the transports used a decoy as a distraction. Maybe they crash landed but their passengers landed intact. Maybe they all got down in escape pods. Whatever the reason, it's legal ("We will make it legal.")

And hey if you're desperate enough to throw ships away just to leave ground units stranded in a blockaded system, then I think you earned it.

Rules > Fluff (or logic sometimes)

Rules > Fluff (or logic sometimes)

As we've seen in Episodes 1, 4, 5, and 7, space-based blockades of planets are completely ineffective in Star Wars.

So if a transport (or any other troop carrier) is destroyed in the first round of space combat, the embarked troops are not destroyed but are allowed to land? That doesn't really make sense. If your ships can't get past a blockade in space, how can they land troops on the surface?

Yeah, I see what you're saying. If it were me, I would have said that the transports need to survive the first round of space combat in order to land the troops.

But perhaps FFG considered that and found it either too complex and/or unbalancing.

I think that is exactly the case. This game is already complicated enough and unlike Axis and Allies, a faction is very limited to what they can build. Think of it as those transports were sacrificed to get those troops on the ground. It was a suicide mission.

I like to think of everything happening simultaneously. it is a fleet of transports with ground troops. some don't make it but others drop the troops on the ground, they could be making daring suicide runs to drop the troops off but not surviving the space battle.

I like to think of everything happening simultaneously. it is a fleet of transports with ground troops. some don't make it but others drop the troops on the ground, they could be making daring suicide runs to drop the troops off but not surviving the space battle.

We see this a few times in the book (which is canon) ​Battlefront: Twilight Company.

So if a transport (or any other troop carrier) is destroyed in the first round of space combat, the embarked troops are not destroyed but are allowed to land? That doesn't really make sense. If your ships can't get past a blockade in space, how can they land troops on the surface?

Disclaimer: You are free to think/imagine however you like.

In war games, I mainly see these "it doesn't make sense" logic issues as a lack of thinking about the game as abstract in a way. If you see it representative, then yes. it makes no sense. You move ships in. They get destroyed. Story over. However, if you think about it even a little, this game (as most are) is heavily abstracted. So, your round of space combat and fleet movement isn't move fleet. fight. fight again. one side dies. Its more a setting to the abstract concept of moving in a force to land troops and fight in space. The result is the overall result of this. Just because you move two plastic transports in and both die, does not mean you moved 2 GR-75's in alone and they were shot entering the system. It means that you moved in a fleet with a primary purpose of troop transportation and that the fleet was rendered ineffective within the system (meaning remnants of detached ships left independently or that they all stayed on planet hiding out).

The main thing to remember is that no one said that the board shows you what happened in detail. So, if a rule doesn't make sense with how you think it should happen, you are probably imagining it in an unfounded way e.g. wrong (only because, in a game, the creators are imagining it correctly since they made it).