First things first, this post has nothing to do with Wayland or the RP event related to it. I'm speaking in general.
Considering all the arguments presented up to now, I think that the rule about not being able to control an invaded world more than 2 hexes away should be extended to not waging invasions there either for most cases. We can argue that the way it is written allows for the opposite, and I do not oppose that, as there are certain scenarios where you don't really want or need to control an enemy world (yet), but just want it destabilised. Enemy has an entire world focussed on war factories (like Balmorra in SW:TOR)? Take it out, start a revolution, plant a disease or bio-weapon... neither necessitates control and all have the potential to effectively cripple the world so as to prevent the enemy from making use of it.
A better question then, however, is if that can still be called an invasion. Spec-ops or the like would be more appropriate, and as I understand it, that falls under general RP, not invasion rules.
With how hyperspace travel works (
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Hyperspace), and the fact that without it, the same ship will have needed weeks (if not more) for a journey made in an instant, I think we can't really argue that any other method can be considered for an invasion, unless you're invading the neighbouring system. And then there's also the issue with the ships being visible to every scanner or eye within range when not in hyperspace, so invading anything but a border world without using hyperspace travel would require an infeasible amount of luck or incredible military superiority to even get anywhere else; especially since enemy ships can warp in with the use hyperspace in seconds after the invasion is detected.
Let's consider the fact that we're talking *invasions*; the meaning of the world is to conquer and then control the area. I don't think it possible to control a planet without a supply line (you've got a fleet and plenty of soldiers to feed, fuel and maintain, after all!), and that follows the same rule for hyperspace travel (which again, really has no alternative, unless you intend for your supplies to arrive weeks, months, or even years too late). Of course you can argue that this does not prevent one from making a stupid decision and ignoring the necessity for supply lines, but do we really have anyone capable of ordering an invasion who would feasibly do that?
So all in all, the way I see it, all the facts and logic point to invasions making more sense if they are limited by borders. And if the facts aren't enough or if you are one of those who dismiss sci-fi realism with "it's all fiction anyway," then just consider it good sport; isn't it more interesting if you invade the enemy by conquering world after world, either with a surgical blitz to the core, or by conquering border worlds and tightening the noose until finally you invade the capital? Doesn't it strain willing suspension of disbelief if the enemy just suddenly shows up at your doorstep, despite having established a web of contingencies on all worlds around it and the faction borders? Which gives a more rewarding feeling of satisfaction when you finally succeed? Which one will make a better story?