Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:Restarting is not a fair option, as it rewards to person that made to error by giving them a do over, while robbing the other player of victory due to making a smart move. The judge called it right, which set the precedence the current rules cover. Null deploy is a risky tactic that can pay off big or lose big. In that specific case, it lost big.

SJ

Giving the Tau player the win rewarded the person who made an error that resulted in the game halting. They BOTH killed the game, so the i=only fair option is to restart.

WHen you say "the current rules" you mean "not in 7th or 6th edition rulebook or FAQ" yes? Or do you have a reference to your assertion that says the current rules cover this?

You should probably try reading the rules first before making bold, unsupported statements, Nos.

Sudden Death Victory
“If at the end of any game turn, one player has no models on the battlefield his opponent automatically wins. Units occupying a building or embarked on a vehicle still count as being on the battlefield, but units that are in Reserve (including Ongoing Reserve) do not.

/drops mic

SJ

IIRC it has always been, if you do not have any models on the table you lose. If you were stuck when you fell back and no where to go, you get destroyed. So that was definitely taken into consideration.

And secondly, restarting might complicate matters. What is the point of a TO when you can just restart when you feel like it?

And also, it is an analogy of fairness. If you think out ruling the TO is the definition of fairness then good for you.

Lastly, I am looking at it on a tournament level thing, where TOs actually consider things instead of just meh, we'll roll the dice and make everyone happy. My final stand is, if you are willing to cheese it out, then don't be a spoilsport if you get outwitted.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:Restarting is not a fair option, as it rewards to person that made to error by giving them a do over, while robbing the other player of victory due to making a smart move. The judge called it right, which set the precedence the current rules cover. Null deploy is a risky tactic that can pay off big or lose big. In that specific case, it lost big.

SJ

Giving the Tau player the win rewarded the person who made an error that resulted in the game halting. They BOTH killed the game, so the i=only fair option is to restart.

WHen you say "the current rules" you mean "not in 7th or 6th edition rulebook or FAQ" yes? Or do you have a reference to your assertion that says the current rules cover this?

You should probably try reading the rules first before making bold, unsupported statements, Nos.

Sudden Death Victory
“If at the end of any game turn, one player has no models on the battlefield his opponent automatically wins. Units occupying a building or embarked on a vehicle still count as being on the battlefield, but units that are in Reserve (including Ongoing Reserve) do not.

/drops mic

SJ

Please explain how you get to the end of a game turn when you cannot proceed past the start of the movement phase?

I suggest you pick the mic back up, given your arugment is, as ever, full of holes you could drive a rhino through.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:Restarting is not a fair option, as it rewards to person that made to error by giving them a do over, while robbing the other player of victory due to making a smart move. The judge called it right, which set the precedence the current rules cover. Null deploy is a risky tactic that can pay off big or lose big. In that specific case, it lost big.

SJ

Giving the Tau player the win rewarded the person who made an error that resulted in the game halting. They BOTH killed the game, so the i=only fair option is to restart.

WHen you say "the current rules" you mean "not in 7th or 6th edition rulebook or FAQ" yes? Or do you have a reference to your assertion that says the current rules cover this?

You should probably try reading the rules first before making bold, unsupported statements, Nos.

Sudden Death Victory
“If at the end of any game turn, one player has no models on the battlefield his opponent automatically wins. Units occupying a building or embarked on a vehicle still count as being on the battlefield, but units that are in Reserve (including Ongoing Reserve) do not.

/drops mic

SJ

Please explain how you get to the end of a game turn when you cannot proceed past the start of the movement phase?

I suggest you pick the mic back up, given your arugment is, as ever, full of holes you could drive a rhino through.

It means you do not have any models on the battlefield, thus setting the rule in that his opponent automatically wins. Some armies do not have shooting, does that mean they have no shooting phase? So does that means neither can they win/ or lose and the game restarts infinitely?

bleak wrote:
IIRC it has always been, if you do not have any models on the table you lose. If you were stuck when you fell back and no where to go, you get destroyed. So that was definitely taken into consideration.

And secondly, restarting might complicate matters. What is the point of a TO when you can just restart when you feel like it?

And also, it is an analogy of fairness. If you think out ruling the TO is the definition of fairness then good for you.

Lastly, I am looking at it on a tournament level thing, where TOs actually consider things instead of just meh, we'll roll the dice and make everyone happy. My final stand is, if you are willing to cheese it out, then don't be a spoilsport if you get outwitted.

1) Yes, at the end of a game turn (and that didnt exist in 5th, hence null deploy with no turn 1 reserves - you do remember this is a 5th edition situation, yes? )
2) It complicates no matters. THe game halted and could not proceed. Start again, from scratch. Given that they players actually did do that, it complicates..nothing
3) No, I am stating the TO made an objectively bad call. BOTH players caused th game to hlat, yet ONE player got the advantage of an uncontested win.
4) I am also, as a TO myself, looking it at a Tournament level thing. I have shown considerably more cosnideration of this than you have demonstrated here. I am not "making everyone happy" I am trying to apply a fair ruling that doesnt just hand the Tau player a win despite them jointly causing the situation. I then, as explained oh maybe a dozen times would make that the ruling going forward , as a public announcement, to again ensure fairness.

Your final stand is factually gak. They could not anticipate that the TO would arbitrarily decide the units were destroyed, so they were not "outwitted". The TO made an objectively bad call to make, especially in a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bleak wrote:

Please explain how you get to the end of a game turn when you cannot proceed past the start of the movement phase?

I suggest you pick the mic back up, given your arugment is, as ever, full of holes you could drive a rhino through.

It means you do not have any models on the battlefield, thus setting the rule in that his opponent automatically wins. Some armies do not have shooting, does that mean they have no shooting phase? So does that means neither can they win/ or lose and the game restarts infinitely?

Wait, you need to move models to consider the movement phase done? This is definitely a rule I didn't know.

And wow, you are a TO and you just restart the entire thing just like that? You do know that it is the laziest thing to do as a TO to just declare it to restart. This means that a tactic or strategy used by the tau player has already been shown and now the marine player has that advantage.

That too is unfair for the tau player. So the TO gave the win to the tau player who outplayed his opponent.

Sigh. No, you must move reserves onto the table. There is no option in this. If you cannot mvoe reserves on to tht etable, the game halts - yo uhave no in-game way to resolve the situation.

Slightly different to what youre proposing. Maybe you should take your sarcasm elsewhere, given youre repeatedly wrong?

No, it is not the "laziest" thing to do. It is the only *fair* solution to a sitaution BOTH players contributed to. You keep ignoring this, pretending somehow it was solely the marine players "fault".

Yes, they have the advantage of not having the game halt again. Or, given yo umake the ruling that it affects from now on, they would then lose - but would at least lose knowing that that was the rule. Again, show your thinking that handing an unfair win is somehwoe "fair" - youve demonstrated gak all so far.

You seem to be uinaware of what "playing" means, given the TO created a new rule to give the Tau player the win.

Would you appreciate a TO that came up and decided that, because you forgot to roll for reserves (something that is also a must, and that BOTH players therefore havea respionsibility to ensure) that you should lose the game - even though this isnt written anywhere?

6th edition it wouldn't have happened since you could only put half your army in reserves

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh. No, you must move reserves onto the table. There is no option in this. If you cannot mvoe reserves on to tht etable, the game halts - yo uhave no in-game way to resolve the situation.

Slightly different to what youre proposing. Maybe you should take your sarcasm elsewhere, given youre repeatedly wrong?

No, it is not the "laziest" thing to do. It is the only *fair* solution to a sitaution BOTH players contributed to. You keep ignoring this, pretending somehow it was solely the marine players "fault".

Yes, they have the advantage of not having the game halt again. Or, given yo umake the ruling that it affects from now on, they would then lose - but would at least lose knowing that that was the rule. Again, show your thinking that handing an unfair win is somehwoe "fair" - youve demonstrated gak all so far.

You seem to be uinaware of what "playing" means, given the TO created a new rule to give the Tau player the win.

Would you appreciate a TO that came up and decided that, because you forgot to roll for reserves (something that is also a must, and that BOTH players therefore havea respionsibility to ensure) that you should lose the game - even though this isnt written anywhere?

If you forget a reserves roll, that is your fault. Are you stating that if I forget to deepstrike in turn 2 I get to restart from there even when the game ended? I get to restart because I made a mistake? I stated the reason why its fair what the TO did, and the TO has a hold of what goes on in the tourney. And I am sure if its that unfair, the white scars player would have already requested for a rematch which I remembered there wasn't one.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
6th edition it wouldn't have happened since you could only put half your army in reserves

There were ways around it, like being in Transports that were required to start in Reserves, but not with that White Scars army.

bleak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Would you appreciate a TO that came up and decided that, because you forgot to roll for reserves (something that is also a must, and that BOTH players therefore havea respionsibility to ensure) that you should lose the game - even though this isnt written anywhere?

If you forget a reserves roll, that is your fault. Are you stating that if I forget to deepstrike in turn 2 I get to restart from there even when the game ended? I get to restart because I made a mistake? I stated the reason why its fair what the TO did, and the TO has a hold of what goes on in the tourney. And I am sure if its that unfair, the white scars player would have already requested for a rematch which I remembered there wasn't one.

So, given you were wrong about other points, you forget about them and come up with yet another missing the point, point?

No, actually you find it is a required action, that both players have responsibility for. There is no optional element - see, optional means one player has control over it. Non optional means that it is mandatory for the game to continue to function. This is fundamental to games design

No, I did not state that you would get to restart. Agaain, any chance you can respond to what is actually written, rather than what you imagine was written? I actually said - what if a TO decided that because YOU forgot a reserves roll, YOU forfeit the game.

So, any chance you could more carefully read what others have written, and argue the points? Not your made up gak?

Oh, and they did actually play another game.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Your final stand is factually gak. They could not anticipate that the TO would arbitrarily decide the units were destroyed, so they were not "outwitted". The TO made an objectively bad call to make, especially in a tournament.

Was it a bad call? The 5th edition FAQ stated that units unable to move fully onto the table from reserves were destroyed.

If this happened pre-FAQ then it seems like he made the right call. If it was post-FAQ then he definitely made the right call.

Dman137 wrote:
If you have a unit that is outflanking or in reserve and for whatever reason you can't make it on the board because your opponent lined up along your table edge, do you stay in reserve or are you removed as a causality.? The BRB says nothing about what happens. So I would say they die. Since a lot of rules say that if a model can't be placed it is destroyed, I'd apply the same rule here

neither actually as we see on pg 136 moving on from reserve, second paragraph.

move them on as far as you can and they can hang over the table edge if need be. so with 2" between the blocking models, you could probably get a 1/4" of the base onto the table before getting into 1" of either and just place a marker so every one knows that where the model is.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Your final stand is factually gak. They could not anticipate that the TO would arbitrarily decide the units were destroyed, so they were not "outwitted". The TO made an objectively bad call to make, especially in a tournament.

Was it a bad call? The 5th edition FAQ stated that units unable to move fully onto the table from reserves were destroyed.

If this happened pre-FAQ then it seems like he made the right call. If it was post-FAQ then he definitely made the right call.

Pre FAQ

It's a bad call to make during a game, for reasons explained at length. You make it for games going forward, but not that game.

As I said : if you're told you lost a game because you forgot a reserve roll, would that be a good call regardless of a later FAQ? You've just made a decision which the "losing" player could not have prepared for, as in this case.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, the Tau player won the round, because the TO decided no game should be played. It was a manifestly unfair decision.

Sealing the board edge causes the game to halt. Both players caused that.

Restart. AFTER that you then decide that in future units that cannot enter are destroyed.

Anything esle is demonstrably unfair.

Space Marine player did something ballsy that worked against the majority of his opponents. His tactical error was understood, and he was outplayed, unable to enter the board, and therefore participate in the game. Restarting the game, as has been noticed above, would have given the spacemarine player, who made an error, an opportunity to get a win, after he had lost.

Was it an unusual situation? Yes, was there an FAQ? No, as it has probably happened once, in the history of the game. Did the TO make the right call? Absolutely, at a tournament, if you make an error, and you lose, there are no do-overs, and the rules, as written, prevented the Space MArine player from entering the board; do not confuse smart use of rules with "there are no rules to cover this.".

 goblinzz wrote:
... after he had lost.

Where did the rules say that he lost if there was a situation not covered by the rules?

sirlynchmob wrote:

Dman137 wrote:
If you have a unit that is outflanking or in reserve and for whatever reason you can't make it on the board because your opponent lined up along your table edge, do you stay in reserve or are you removed as a causality.? The BRB says nothing about what happens. So I would say they die. Since a lot of rules say that if a model can't be placed it is destroyed, I'd apply the same rule here

neither actually as we see on pg 136 moving on from reserve, second paragraph.

move them on as far as you can and they can hang over the table edge if need be. so with 2" between the blocking models, you could probably get a 1/4" of the base onto the table before getting into 1" of either and just place a marker so every one knows that where the model is.

I would be hugely unhappy with this, and do not believe it is legal. IF any part of a model's base, or vehicles hull leaves the table, then that unit must leave the table. Having your land raider with a corner on the board, and then saying that it is firing from past the edge of the table is total nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
... after he had lost.

Where did the rules say that he lost if there was a situation not covered by the rules?

The rules as written prevented the player from entering the board. The player could not participate in the game, ergo, he lost. It is not a cpmplicated equation.

 goblinzz wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, the Tau player won the round, because the TO decided no game should be played. It was a manifestly unfair decision.

Sealing the board edge causes the game to halt. Both players caused that.

Restart. AFTER that you then decide that in future units that cannot enter are destroyed.

Anything esle is demonstrably unfair.

Space Marine player did something ballsy that worked against the majority of his opponents. His tactical error was understood, and he was outplayed, unable to enter the board, and therefore participate in the game. Restarting the game, as has been noticed above, would have given the spacemarine player, who made an error, an opportunity to get a win, after he had lost.

Was it an unusual situation? Yes, was there an FAQ? No, as it has probably happened once, in the history of the game. Did the TO make the right call? Absolutely, at a tournament, if you make an error, and you lose, there are no do-overs, and the rules, as written, prevented the Space MArine player from entering the board; do not confuse smart use of rules with "there are no rules to cover this.".

This.

No one forced the White Scars player to put himself at risk by holding his entire force in reserve. Tactical blunders result in losses. I support the judge's call.

 goblinzz wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
... after he had lost.

Where did the rules say that he lost if there was a situation not covered by the rules?

The rules as written prevented the player from entering the board. The player could not participate in the game, ergo, he lost. It is not a cpmplicated equation.

Again, please provide an actual rules quote to back up your claims that he lost.

 Ghaz wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
... after he had lost.

Where did the rules say that he lost if there was a situation not covered by the rules?

The rules as written prevented the player from entering the board. The player could not participate in the game, ergo, he lost. It is not a cpmplicated equation.

Again, please provide an actual rules quote to back up your claims that he lost.

The player could not participate in the game, as he was outfoxed at deployment, and therefore lost. It's pretty straightforward. The fact that an FAQ came out confirming this fact in the months after this game confirming this is merely the icing on the cake of the evidence supporting his loss..

 goblinzz wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Dman137 wrote:
If you have a unit that is outflanking or in reserve and for whatever reason you can't make it on the board because your opponent lined up along your table edge, do you stay in reserve or are you removed as a causality.? The BRB says nothing about what happens. So I would say they die. Since a lot of rules say that if a model can't be placed it is destroyed, I'd apply the same rule here

neither actually as we see on pg 136 moving on from reserve, second paragraph.

move them on as far as you can and they can hang over the table edge if need be. so with 2" between the blocking models, you could probably get a 1/4" of the base onto the table before getting into 1" of either and just place a marker so every one knows that where the model is.

I would be hugely unhappy with this, and do not believe it is legal. IF any part of a model's base, or vehicles hull leaves the table, then that unit must leave the table. Having your land raider with a corner on the board, and then saying that it is firing from past the edge of the table is total nonsense.

It might make for other fun issues, but that is the RAW. you must move onto the table, and you are told what to do if the whole model doesn't fit onto the table. I cited where the rule is at, give it a read when you get the chance.

 goblinzz wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
... after he had lost.

Where did the rules say that he lost if there was a situation not covered by the rules?

The rules as written prevented the player from entering the board. The player could not participate in the game, ergo, he lost. It is not a cpmplicated equation.

Again, please provide an actual rules quote to back up your claims that he lost.

The player could not participate in the game, as he was outfoxed at deployment, and therefore lost. It's pretty straightforward. The fact that an FAQ came out confirming this fact in the months after this game confirming this is merely the icing on the cake of the evidence supporting his loss..

So you still can't provide an actual rule to support your claims.

bleak wrote:
IIRC it has always been, if you do not have any models on the table you lose.

That's only been a rule for the last couple of editions.

And secondly, restarting might complicate matters. What is the point of a TO when you can just restart when you feel like it?

I think you misunderstood. People were suggesting that in this particular situation (since the game hadn't really even started yet) he should have made the ruling but then restarted the game with that ruling in place so that the game could play out with a rule that covered the issue without unfairly benefiting one player.

My final stand is, if you are willing to cheese it out, then don't be a spoilsport if you get outwitted.

It's not being 'outwitted' if an opponent breaks the game by exploiting a rules hole that results in a situation not covered by the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Was it a bad call? The 5th edition FAQ stated that units unable to move fully onto the table from reserves were destroyed.

If this happened pre-FAQ then it seems like he made the right call. If it was post-FAQ then he definitely made the right call.

It wouldn't have been a bad call to have made in the tournament rules package, so that all players were aware that this is how it would be played before any models hit the board.

It was a bad call to make in a game that was in progress, because it had such a lopsided outcome.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 goblinzz wrote:
I would be hugely unhappy with this, and do not believe it is legal.

You can be unhappy with it if you like, but it is how the current Reserves rules work.

This, however:

IF any part of a model's base, or vehicles hull leaves the table, then that unit must leave the table.

...is not a rule, unless the model is Falling Back, or is a Flyer.

Ghaz, i doubt we are going to agree, but here's my viewpoint:

An important function for the TO is to make difficult rulings and decisions in poorly covered sections of the rules. If the TO had ruled that the game had to be restarted, would he have told the Tau player that he had to leave a 1" gap somewhere for the White Scars player to come on? Banned him from being within 6" of the opponents table edge? In this situation, WHATEVER he chose to do effectively led to a new rule being created for that game, either one covering deployment, or one covering moving on from reserves.

In my opinion, the better of those two choices was to create a house rule covering what happens when someone cannot come in from reserve, as that does not penalise smart deployment.

You can ask all day for a rule covering the situation, and we both know that at the time there wasn't one, neither of us disagrees with that statement. Effectively we are arguing over which house rule was the best to resolve the situation, a discussion upon which I have made my opinion clear.

The problem with your viewpoint is that it's just that. Your viewpoint. In a game, you need rules to support your viewpoint otherwise its just your house rule.

As an addendum: I have revised my opinion slightly, as insaniak makes a good point. You can restart the game with a ruling in place, and declare that everyone now knows what is going on. In an ideal world you can have these decisions made in advance of the tournament.

Unfortunately, this situation had not come up, so by restarting the game, it is inherently going to be a bit annoying (penalising) for one person for the extent of that game.

I still support the TO's decision though. TOs have a difficult job, and you can bitch about it afterwards all you want, but when you run events, you are ALWAYS going to end up having to make a judgement call that may not be perfect. That is how FAQs evolve and grow (or at least should, looking at you GW), situations come up, are ruled on, and then added to a list of resolved questions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
The problem with your viewpoint is that it's just that. Your viewpoint. In a game, you need rules to support your viewpoint otherwise its just your house rule.

Ghaz, that's my point EXACTLY! There was NO RULE to cover the situation! Therefore a House rule HAD to be created, or that's it, game done, neither player can continue with the day?

Regardless of whether you feel the game should have been restarted, how would YOU have resolved this situation without making a house rule?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Insaniak, thanks for the clarity on reserves vs. falling back, it's amusing that you have two different situations that logically SHOULD be covered the same way, but are treated seperately!

 goblinzz wrote:
If the TO had ruled that the game had to be restarted, would he have told the Tau player that he had to leave a 1" gap somewhere for the White Scars player to come on?

There would have been no reason to do so. Both players would have started the game with the knowledge that the situation that created the game break the first time round would now result in an automatic loss for the marine player, and he would either adjust his strategy accordingly, or deploy as he had the first time and suffer a first turn loss.

In my opinion, the better of those two choices was to create a house rule covering what happens when someone cannot come in from reserve, as that does not penalise smart deployment.

That was everyone else's opinion as well.

The difference is just that some of us feel that, because of the one-sided outcome of imposing that rule on this particular game rather than making that ruling before the game had started, allowing the players to start over with that ruling in place would have been fairer for both players.

 insaniak wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:
If the TO had ruled that the game had to be restarted, would he have told the Tau player that he had to leave a 1" gap somewhere for the White Scars player to come on?

There would have been no reason to do so. Both players would have started the game with the knowledge that the situation that created the game break the first time round would now result in an automatic loss for the marine player, and he would either adjust his strategy accordingly, or deploy as he had the first time and suffer a first turn loss.

In my opinion, the better of those two choices was to create a house rule covering what happens when someone cannot come in from reserve, as that does not penalise smart deployment.

That was everyone else's opinion as well.

The difference is just that some of us feel that, because of the one-sided outcome of imposing that rule on this particular game rather than making that ruling before the game had started, allowing the players to start over with that ruling in place would have been fairer for both players.

I actually agree with you now insaniak, it would have been to restart with the ruling in place, since it was effectively a house rule. The sky must be falling, somebody in an online forum (me) changed their opinion!

Two points, then I'll drop the mic again:

Arriving from Reserve
When Reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving it onto the table as described below. Then pick another arriving unit and deploy it, and so on until all arriving units are on the table. The player can then proceed to move his other units as normal. Note that you must first roll for all Reserves, and then move any arriving Reserves, before any other units can move.

Preparing Reserves
When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. In addition, if it impossible to deploy a unit for any reason, it must be placed in Reserve. The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed. Such units are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of Preparing for Battle.

The underlined in both quotes make my case. If a unit cannot be deployed from reserve, it is removed as a casualty. While you can make an argument that the second passage in question deals only with pre-game set up, it does gives us a precedent for what can occur while deploying a unit during a game turn, as noted in the first quote.

The game don't end because one person can't move their models. The game ends because one person has no models on the table at the end of the game turn. Movement phase, can't deploy models on to the table, those models are lost. No Psychic phase, no Shooting phase, no Assault phase, game turn over, sudden death victory goes to the player with models on the table.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Two points, then I'll drop the mic again:

Arriving from Reserve
When Reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving it onto the table as described below. Then pick another arriving unit and deploy it, and so on until all arriving units are on the table. The player can then proceed to move his other units as normal. Note that you must first roll for all Reserves, and then move any arriving Reserves, before any other units can move.

Preparing Reserves
When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. In addition, if it impossible to deploy a unit for any reason, it must be placed in Reserve. The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed. Such units are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of Preparing for Battle.

The underlined in both quotes make my case. If a unit cannot be deployed from reserve, it is removed as a casualty. While you can make an argument that the second passage in question deals only with pre-game set up, it does gives us a precedent for what can occur while deploying a unit during a game turn, as noted in the first quote.

The game don't end because one person can't move their models. The game ends because one person has no models on the table at the end of the game turn. Movement phase, can't deploy models on to the table, those models are lost. No Psychic phase, no Shooting phase, no Assault phase, game turn over, sudden death victory goes to the player with models on the table.

SJ

That second quote does not mean what you think it means.

Preparing Reserves happens well before you are Arriving from Reserve and as such the rules for Preparing Reserves have no affect on Arriving from Reserve.