If an enemy planet has 1 ground force and you invade, bombard and destroy them and land with your ground force are you eligible for this objective card?

My guess and opinion is yes since bombardment is a part of invasion combat.

Thanks beforehand

I think that the answer is no. According to the RAW the bombing is a before combat effect, as such it's effects are applyed before the actual invasion combat begins, so if all the enemy forces are destroyed before the landing the planet is considered hostile but unguarded.

Bombardment is part of the invasion sequence; it may be "pre-invasion", but that's similar to "precombat" in space battles, and it has been stated that pre-combat in space battles DO count as part of the battle. (PDS fire against ships does not because that is a different step in the Activation Sequence).

While War Suns can bombard without invading, Dreadnoughts cannot - they are tied together.

I would rules "yes" - bombarding a planet does not put you at risk of losing the ability to qualify for this objective.

I concur with Sigmazero - you can still qualify for this objective if you bombard the planet (naturally, you must bombard and invade in the same action - you can't clear the planet with a warsun, then land later).

I bow to the experience, still I'm not 100% convinced.

This is not a strong argument, but invading a planet containing one ground force is not the same as winning an invasion combat against one ground force. The nuance tends to indicate that Sigmazero and possuman are right.

This is in the FAQ:

"Q: Can you acquire the Objective: “I destroyed X Ground
Forces” by bombarding them or using an Action card such as
“Chemical Warfare”?
A: Yes."

Turies said:

If you are bombarding a planet, it is because you have Ground Forces on the planet fighting enemy Ground Forces. Your Ground Forces are reporting back to your orbiting Dreadnoughts/War Suns that there are enemy Ground Forces that need bombarding. This is all part of Invasion Combat. So the Objective Card counts.

If there were no enemy Ground Forces on the planet, there would be no Invasion Combat. So there is no invading and no opposing Ground Force to count towards an Objective Card.

Shonner said:

While the thematic explanation is helpful, it's not 100% accurate in all cases; War Suns can Bombard even if they don't land any troops on the planet.

sigmazero13 said:

True. War Suns have much better planet sensors than Dreadnoughts and can find enemy Ground Forces without invading.

sigmazero13 said:

Looking through the ambiguous rules again... I'm guessing you are talking about using an Action Card to do your War Sun bombarding in TI3 because otherwise you can't have opposing Ground Forces remaining on a planet together at the end of your Tactial Action because you decided to skip the Invasion Combat. And you have to land Ground Forces first on a planet before you can even begin to bombard it.

Ok. Nevermind. I see where it basically says in the TI3 rules that a War Sun can skip the Planetary Landing step and go directly to the Invasion Combat step. Adding to my game round sheet.

This is really resolved by the FAQ as Broken said:

FAQ 2.2, Page 10

Q: Can you acquire the Objective: “I destroyed X Ground
Forces” by bombarding them or using an Action card such as
“Chemical Warfare”?

A: Yes.

I think you misread your FAQ because in it the answer is No.

BTW it is in the second page 10 of the FAQ since the last two page of it are both labeled as being page 10.

Ugluk said:

I think you may be looking at the wrong version of the FAQ The one posted here on the FFG website (with the file name ti3faq2-2-1.pdf, dated 3/20/2009) has the answer as YES.

There was an old version (file name ti3faq2-2.pdf) that said "NO", but that was changed only a few days after that FAQ was released (and, if I recall, that one was just a preliminary FAQ). I think it may be confusing because the DATE on that FAQ had a typo - it says 12/19/2009, but it should have been 12/19/2008. (You can verify this by looking in the Document Properties of the PDF file; it will show the correct 2008 date). There was another version of that FAQ releaseed 3 days later dated 12/22/2008, which fixed the date typo, AND corrected the ruling (ti3faq2-2-4.pdf). The title in that FAQ just says Version 2.2, though.

The ti3faq2-2-1.pdf is the most recent FAQ, and the FAQ itself says "Version 2.2.1" inside. This version has the "YES" answer. (I'm not sure why the other one is ti3faq2-2-4.pdf, though; it's no longer the most recent version, despite the filename implying otherwise).

But the "most recent FAQ" still has the 2 page 10's typo