I could turn that right back at you.
No, you couldn't, because it only gets more incredibly tortured and unsustainable.
It doesn't matter if you think it was a failed assault or a raid, it matters
what our objectives were and how we pursued them. Our objective was to clear the way for a possible invasion by the destruction of specific targets. This is raiding at its most simple: destruction of particular objectives to support future operations. The fact we had enough force left over in the end to launch the invasion immediately was a happy coincidence, but not a given, and our planning acknowledged this both beforehand and during the battle. This is what actually happened. If you wish to dispute it, you will need to prove that it is
not what happened. As you have utterly failed to do that, you may be safely ignored.
The techs that you are thinking of, perhaps, but there are techs that state "+1D for ships in sector" or the like. You have not addressed this. It also falls to the interesting assumption that skirmishing or the like would
not be treated as an event roll, which you actually don't know. Given the statements of the various things about joining or denying battle rolls and the times we've had encounters in the GBZ on the small scale or the times where we've had contacts that did not result in fire being exchanged in the same area, this assumption seems...questionable.
Rules As Written. Defending a starbase grants +1L. You cannot defend a starbase that does not exist. If the starbase ceases to exist, the +1L logically does as well,
under the rules as written. You can twist things however you like, but that's not what the actual words are. Unless Oneiros says otherwise or the rules are changed, the only way to interpret them we have is in the way they are actually written down.
