What he's saying is that yes, those consequences happen, but they're not "Bam, you lose, don't bother rolling" consequences. They're consequences that the players have to work against.
Looking back at the example, I listed ways that the PCs could react to the plot device. I'm sure I missed a few, the list was:
Do they run, go underground, hide out, veil and watch the operation, use this as a distraction to hit another target, have sniper positioned to take out officer Rat Face (long standing NPC who's behind the raid), or do they do something else?
In short, there was nothing "you lose" in that example. There was a "this is happen" a plot device bit, but the results of that plot device were up in the air.
If the PCs' actions have led to the FBI, ATF, state police, SWAT, Tactical Squad, etc showing up, then there is a "you can't win this fight" situation - one that the PCs have to work around in a non-combative way. Or there is a total disconnect between how the police respond to things and what happens in your game.
18 accuracy attack evocation, using 18 shifts of power to split it up over 9 zones at weapon rating 0. If the cops are not spread out enough, they're in trouble.
There are no win situations in life. The cops make a habit out making any planned arrest a no win situation for the other side. 30 - 40 cops will show up to arrest one drug dealer - and shoot his house full of holes if they feel they have a reason to.
You seem to be thinking in terms of a balanced (balanced to be hard, but still balanced) encounter. What happened in Changes (the inspiration for my example) wasn't a balanced encounter. It was overwhelming force. It was basically a plot device used to get Murphy and Harry together for the coming fight scene.
At its heart, this discussion is a conflict of philosophies. One side feels "If you remove the possibility of no win situations from your game, you are doing a disservice to your players" while the other side feels that there always has to be an out.
Why do I feel that no wins are needed? Because without them there is little to struggle against. Everything comes down "If I make this roll I'll win" situations, which means the drama comes from the dice rolls, not the story.
I'll draw an example from a book - if the Darkhallow had happened, the result would be a no win situation for every PC in Chicago. Thus the drama comes from trying to stop the event. Knowing that if your PCs fail to stop it, then it could be the end of the game, everyone makes a new PC, we set the next game in an alternative timeline where the White Council still exists - that adds drama to the PCs' choices.
The plot device ritual from Changes was similar. When that ritual went off, no force in the DV could protect anyone it targeted. None. Making it a "prevent that or die" situation.
Summer Knight had two plot devices that were linked. "Fail to stop the Queens from going ahead to head" and the world would be destroyed. "Fail to complete the challenge from the White Council" and Harry would be handed over to the Red Court.
If those stakes weren't on the table, would the challenge have been as important?
Richard