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.

Shenra, if you cannot post without calling someone ignorant or dense or basically insulting them, please don't post, as it is not needed and will get you in trouble.

Also, a save in any sense is defined. You can talk about using language and everything else, but if it is defined in the BRB, then that is what it is, nothing else. Because if you are my opponent, and you tell me the LD test is a save when we have this dispute across the table, I will then tell you that you just auto fail it then.

You did state that "range is an attack". That;s the exact way that you wrote it, so if range is an attack, that would make ALL range an attack, as per the English language definition you are using.

I misread the eternal warrior portion of your post, that was my mistake, so sorry for the miscommunication on that part! (As I said, I am getting old, and the memory is the first to go, eyes are second!! )

Also, as far as being technical, this IS YMDC, it is to debate rules as they are written and intended to work, and it is only supposed to use the official FAQs and BRB to debate them, at least if I remember the rules of the forum correctly. So, its basically all about being technical. I would suggest in the future that you don't go into a thread in a forum that is about debating the rules, then get mad when someone uses the actual rules to debate you while you use traditions and generalizations. You just can't win an argument that way, and it does nothing but make you mad, which is when your tongue(fingers?) make the slip of being insulting and you get yourself in trouble with the mods. If it seems like any of us have gotten heated with each other in here, they you are not reading the thread correctly. I have not gotten mad at anyone, nor they at me, at least from my viewpoint. We may get tired of the round robin, but there is no insulting. So debate like a gentleman, or don't post. There have been quite a few times I have not posted because I could not have refrained from saying something insulting, so I simply did not post.

Just a bit of advice to live on!

Dashofpepper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:If a unit fires a lot of sniper weapons at another unit and causes 4 pinning wounds how many pinning tests does the unit take?

pretty sure its 1.

Yes, they take one pinning test. But they make 4 saves, not one. If a STR10 AP1 template hits 10 models out of cover who don't have invulnerable saves and deals 10 wounds....you don't kill one model and call it a day. You allocate them as you like, equally among wound groups. If that was a psychic attack, the first wound would go against the Justicar. Not all 10.

Actually, they would. You resolve any attacks that target psykers versus the Justicar or a random model. All those 10 anti-psyker weapon wounds would be picked up by BoP and placed onto the Justicar, who would turn into one very gory crater. The rest of his unit would be fine though, as they're not in the same wound allocation group as him, unless it's a random model with the same wargear as someone else. Nowhere in the BoP rules does it state that you start with the Justicar, it says you resolve EVERYTHING versus him.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Actually, they would. You resolve any attacks that target psykers versus the Justicar or a random model. All those 10 anti-psyker weapon wounds would be picked up by BoP and placed onto the Justicar, who would turn into one very gory crater. The rest of his unit would be fine though, as they're not in the same wound allocation group as him, unless it's a random model with the same wargear as someone else. Nowhere in the BoP rules does it state that you start with the Justicar, it says you resolve EVERYTHING versus him.

No....you are pluralizing your rule. It is not plural. It is singular. THE ATTACK and ATTACK, and ALLOCATE IT......not attacks, all attacks, allocate them, Justicar resolves them....

You're given permission to resolve a single attack targeting psykers.....albeit ANY kind of attack form that takes against the Justicar.

Your Justicar may have an apple. That is not the same as "Your Justicar may have all apples."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manimal wrote:
This is of course all predicated on assuming that the Ld test is an attack which is in debate.

Indeed. Thus far, I've seen nothing remotely worth considering it to be. I even put up a nice "What an attack is according to the rulebook" in the OP. Even in your own post you're referring to it as a test instead of an attack.

All of you are still trying to hard. Just wait for the FAQ. Which will prove Dash wrong

Hulksmash wrote:All of you are still trying to hard. Just wait for the FAQ. Which will prove Dash wrong

Trying too hard is one of the things we do best.



And of course it will, this is not a xenos codex.

Hulksmash wrote:All of you are still trying to hard. Just wait for the FAQ. Which will prove Dash wrong

I was 50/50 on the PtP issue on your side. On this one, I'm positive. It would require broad redefining of the core rules for this to work in the GK favor.

Hulksmash wrote:All of you are still trying to hard. Just wait for the FAQ. Which will prove Dash wrong

Of course it will, because the GK are the new SHINY MARINES, and of course GW wouldn't want to make them look bad so that sales drop!!

Dashofpepper wrote:It would require broad redefining of the core rules for this to work in the GK favor.

No, not really; see the Tyranid FAQ.

Dashofpepper wrote:
I was 50/50 on the PtP issue on your side. On this one, I'm positive. It would require broad redefining of the core rules for this to work in the GK favor.

Unfortunately, that really hasn't stopped GW before....

Dashofpepper wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:As far as BoP is concerned He is your psyker.

Using/Activating said Arcane weapon and having it have a detrimental effect on the opponent is the very definition of an 'attack'

1. Where do you get the idea that the Justicar *is* the psyker? The GK codex specifies otherwise.

BoP tells you that for affecting psykers the Justicar *is* the psyker. so you work it out against him.

Dashofpepper wrote:3. So you're saying that things that have a detrimental effect on the opponent are an attack? I don't buy it as a definition.
-If you fail a dangerous terrain test, you suffer a detrimental effect. You weren't attacked.
-If you suffer 25% casualties from my attacks and take a morale check and fail, you fall back. That's a detrimental effect. If it is an attack, then the unit that caused the 25% casualties (presuming it was one) just attacked you twice, which is illegal.
-If you mishap, you suffer a detrimental effect without being attacked.
-If you mishap because an opponent has a special rule causing mishaps within a certain range *cough* you still weren't attacked.

No, I am saying that using a weapon on all psykers in a given range is an attack. That is as straightforward of a definition ans one can get.

So the DE use a weapon, that can destroy opponents psykers and this is not considered attacking them? (If this is true you have a strange definition of attack.)

One army attacks the opposing army.

P.S. "I get a 4+ invulnerable save against non power weapon attacks." should read 'I get a 4+ invulnerable save against non power weapon wounds.'

DeathReaper wrote:

No, I am saying that using a weapon on all psykers in a given range is an attack. That is as straightforward of a definition ans one can get.

So the DE use a weapon, that can destroy opponents psykers and this is not considered attacking them? (If this is true you have a strange definition of attack.)

One army attacks the opposing army.

P.S. "I get a 4+ invulnerable save against non power weapon attacks." should read 'I get a 4+ invulnerable save against non power weapon wounds.'

Unfortunately, the CoM is no more a "weapon" than is the Deff Rolla. In fact, the Deff Rolla has more in common with "weapons," as defined by GW's rules, than the CoM, and the Deff Rolla has already been FAQ'd as not being a weapon.

The CoM has no Strength or AP value, doesn't use BS or WS to determine roll needed to hit, doesn't require a roll to hit in the first place, doesn't require a roll to wound, etc.

Remember, for the most part, things like "weapon" and "attack" in 40K are defined terms. When discussing rules and using those terms, it is necessary to adhere to those definitions.

PS: As an aside, even though I'm a DE player, I personally believe that BoP was designed specifically to limit the CoM. Unfortunately, I really don't believe that GW wrote the rules in well enough. Consequently, it wouldn't surprise me either way that a FAQ decides.

Dash wrote:Indeed. Thus far, I've seen nothing remotely worth considering it to be. I even put up a nice "What an attack is according to the rulebook" in the OP. Even in your own post you're referring to it as a test instead of an attack.

That is because I have not yet decided if I think it is an attack or not.

I think it is sufficiently ambiguous (what an attack is) that niether side will convince the other.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:All of you are still trying to hard. Just wait for the FAQ. Which will prove Dash wrong

I was 50/50 on the PtP issue on your side. On this one, I'm positive. It would require broad redefining of the core rules for this to work in the GK favor.

Intent has always mattered more than strict wording. And intent is fairly obvious in the way BoP is written. You can attempt to read it anyway you choose. Just don't expect to actually be right when the FAQ comes out.

Oh and it's not because they are Space Marines! It's because they aren't Tyranids.....DE's FAQ didn't nerf them at all if I recall.

Dashofpepper wrote:
5. Characteristic tests don't meet the requirements to be an attack. You never miss with a characteristic test. You don't aim with it. You don't roll to see if you can force a characteristic test. A leadership test is not a leadership attack, although leadership tests can result from an attack (such as 25% casualties).


So in short....Brotherhood of Psykers is irrelevant to the Crucible of Malediction being used. Leadership tests don't fit into any category of attack or offensive action laid out in the rules, which is why they are called tests, not attacks. While a unit of individual psykers like Eldar warlocks would test individually against the Crucible of Malediction, a Grey Knight unit comprises a single psyker as a unit, not as individual models and so are literally treated as a multi-wound psyker.

Your absolute dismissal of what I have posed for consideration and the fact that you are updating your OP with your conclusions without ever having reconciled what is an attack and what is not an attack is a bit rash and I personally am perturbed at the implication that you have all the answers simply because you said so in an OP update.

Crucible of Malediction is the attack. We claim it is an attack because it is a hostile action that has been taken with hostile intent. It is not a passive effect, but rather is an arcane weapon that one must explicitly choose to use. Everything from determining the range using the rules in the Dark Eldar Codex to resolving what gets removed as a result of a characteristic test it requires the victim to take is not the attack but is the instructions that have been outlined for us players to follow to determine the outcome of using the Crucible of Malediction.
A characteristic test being a part of resolving the attack is not a qualifier, nor is it a dis-qualifier for whether or not Crucible of Malediction is or is not an attack. Stop asserting that the inclusion of a characteristic test in the rules of Crucible of Malediction makes the action itself simply a characteristic test because there is clearly more to it than that.

If you want to claim certainty on this issue you must cite the article where the word attack is defined for us as a rule rather than being simply used as a verb to describe what is happening.

Hulksmash wrote:Intent has always mattered more than strict wording. And intent is fairly obvious in the way BoP is written. You can attempt to read it anyway you choose. Just don't expect to actually be right when the FAQ comes out.

Oh and it's not because they are Space Marines! It's because they aren't Tyranids.....DE's FAQ didn't nerf them at all if I recall.

I kind of agree with this, too. Oftentimes, GW seems to FAQ along the lines of intent over what they actually originally wrote.

As to the DE FAQ, there were a few minor nerfings, or probably more correctly, interpretations that went unfavorably for the DE. Pain tokens not applying to Beasts made a really solid unit into an "ok" unit that doesn't really fit into most builds. The Implosion Missile not being able to snipe; their stating to use wound allocation even though the weapon doesn't cause wounds, despite JotWW working very similarly and being allowed to snipe. The Dias not being able to take upgrades made it even more completely worthless. Making Enhanced Aethersails work like Flat Out in that you can't use them if an embarked unit exits the transport before the transport moves. Those are about it.

Hulksmash wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:All of you are still trying to hard. Just wait for the FAQ. Which will prove Dash wrong

I was 50/50 on the PtP issue on your side. On this one, I'm positive. It would require broad redefining of the core rules for this to work in the GK favor.

Intent has always mattered more than strict wording. And intent is fairly obvious in the way BoP is written. You can attempt to read it anyway you choose. Just don't expect to actually be right when the FAQ comes out.

Oh and it's not because they are Space Marines! It's because they aren't Tyranids.....DE's FAQ didn't nerf them at all if I recall.

I agree---of course validation might be long in coming.

This thread is exactly the reason why my visits to YMDC are infrequent and few...

@Salviden

The pain token ruling should have been expected. It took a broken unit and made it worthwhile.

The rest are pretty standard rules w/the exception of the implosion bombs which was the only one I truly disagreed with

@AoE

Nah, just 2ish months. That's about how long it took for the DE

Majesticgoat wrote:
If you want to claim certainty on this issue you must cite the article where the word attack is defined for us as a rule rather than being simply used as a verb to describe what is happening.

I find that statement ironic considering I haven't seen any citations from any rules or articles supporting your interpretation. "Logic" and "common sense" aren't good enough. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, common sense is hardly common and rarely sensical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:@Salviden

The pain token ruling should have been expected. It took a broken unit and made it worthwhile.

The rest are pretty standard rules w/the exception of the implosion bombs which was the only one I truly disagreed with

Yeah, none of them were particularly terrible. I had really hoped that the pain token one would go the other way, as I had visions of huge Beastmaster packs swarming across the battlefield.

The Implosion Missile one pissed me off. With that FAQ, they are absolutely NOT worth the points cost; if they had ruled the opposite way, the IM would have been worth consideration.

btw

it is not an arcane weapon

it is arcane wargear.

When purchased for a model it does not replace any of the model weapons, ie its not purchased as a weapon upgrade.

it is worth noting the arcane wargear section includes many things that are obviously weapons.

Majesticgoat wrote:your conclusions without ever having reconciled what is an attack and what is not an attack is a bit rash and I personally am perturbed at the implication that you have all the answers simply because you said so in an OP update.

Crucible of Malediction is the attack. We claim it is an attack because it is a hostile action that has been taken with hostile intent. It is not a passive effect, but rather is an arcane weapon that one must explicitly choose to use.

Nope, don't accept it.

1. CoM is not a weapon. Weapon *is* defined in the rulebook methinks? Crucible has no strength, no AP value, no roll to hit or wound, nor does it use the strength of the bearer.

2. You claim that an attack is a hostile action taken with hostile intent. Moving, running and fleeting towards the enemy fall into that category. So does deploying your army on the table against someone. In fact, all the things preceeding an attack would also be attacks by that definition.

I've presented a definition of attack for 40k. It follows all the tenets and examples in the rules, and is generic as possible. If you don't like it, give a reason why you disagree, some evidence that it isn't a good one (like an example of an accepted attack that isn't included), and improve on my definition or replace it.

Galador wrote:Shenra, if you cannot post without calling someone ignorant or dense or basically insulting them, please don't post, as it is not needed and will get you in trouble.

Also, a save in any sense is defined. You can talk about using language and everything else, but if it is defined in the BRB, then that is what it is, nothing else. Because if you are my opponent, and you tell me the LD test is a save when we have this dispute across the table, I will then tell you that you just auto fail it then.

You did state that "range is an attack". That;s the exact way that you wrote it, so if range is an attack, that would make ALL range an attack, as per the English language definition you are using.

I misread the eternal warrior portion of your post, that was my mistake, so sorry for the miscommunication on that part! (As I said, I am getting old, and the memory is the first to go, eyes are second!! )

Also, as far as being technical, this IS YMDC, it is to debate rules as they are written and intended to work, and it is only supposed to use the official FAQs and BRB to debate them, at least if I remember the rules of the forum correctly. So, its basically all about being technical. I would suggest in the future that you don't go into a thread in a forum that is about debating the rules, then get mad when someone uses the actual rules to debate you while you use traditions and generalizations. You just can't win an argument that way, and it does nothing but make you mad, which is when your tongue(fingers?) make the slip of being insulting and you get yourself in trouble with the mods. If it seems like any of us have gotten heated with each other in here, they you are not reading the thread correctly. I have not gotten mad at anyone, nor they at me, at least from my viewpoint. We may get tired of the round robin, but there is no insulting. So debate like a gentleman, or don't post. There have been quite a few times I have not posted because I could not have refrained from saying something insulting, so I simply did not post.

Just a bit of advice to live on!

The problem is that you aren't using the rules to debate...you're using your interpretation of the rules and your interpretation of the absence of rules. We are also. I came in and made some comparisons between attacks from a defined weapons and what the CoM (an undefined weapon...or at least defined in the "fluff") does. Then I was told that I made no sense, and I was misquoted, and I was told what I said was "otter nonsense," (which was funny btw). So I fired back with "ignorance" (which I said because I feel that you and dash are either purposefully misunderstanding or selectively understanding) and "dense" (calling a movement an attack?) come on let's stay on subject. I agree with Hulksmash, this will be errata'd and over with soon enough. But I especially dislike when you guys state that what your side does to my side to remove a model is not an attack. It is an attack. If it is an effect that hurts my army, that is an attack. You can get specific, calling it a specific type of attack,like shooting, or CC, or psychic, or effect, or in the case of CoM...how about undefined? Unlabeled? But when something you pay points for takes away something I paid points for, that is most definitely an attack. (and I'm sure the way I worded that will get some off-subject what if...try to understand what I'm saying instead of thinking of an example of what I'm NOT saying!)

I think BoP is very clear in it's intent...it intends for the Justicar or a single model to suffer the negative effects of psyker shenanigans. For you and Dash to try to get around that by using the absence of a label for the Crucible...that to me is unsportsmanlike? Or will that get me in trouble with the mods? Low? We are playing a game with a complicated rule-set. This happens everytime a new codex comes out. You know what a worthwhile argument is? Does the Dreadknight lose MC when it takes the personal teleporter. GW's intent on that one isn't clear. Or discussing whether it can shunt during the scout move and still assault. Who knows? But BoP, IMO, states GW's intent on how to treat the unit as far as anti-psyker goes. You guys seem to be trying to get around that through rules lawyering. Hey, COM can lay waste to my HQ, my librarian, a justicar, and maybe even a dreadknight or three. It's pretty beast. So why the argument that whole units should be lost? I find that unnecessary. And that's not because I play GK...heck, I don't agree that DK should be able to shunt in the scout move and still assault turn one, even though that would give me an advantage. Because I truly believe we will never have 100% RAW understanding without grey areas. But I do believe we can agree on most things what RAI is.

So if I offended you by firing, or firing back, my apologies. I do understand the logic behind what you and Dash are arguing. However, I find myself more moved by what BoP is clearly trying to do, and I don't believe the absence of a description or label for what CoM is and does should override the intent.

I came to read this as the words "(update!)" were added to the title. I assumed this meant a some new evidence or proof of something had come to light to make a definite ruling (GW making a statement, etc.)

Arguing, anger, and moaning... coupled with some minor personal attacks (from both sides of the argument) isn't an "update". Please don't title it as such.

One more time...two different places in the DE codex tell us that the crucible is a weapon. We can argue about many things here, but if we are going to be using the rules then the crucible IS a weapon.



Sliggoth

Dashofpepper wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:All of you are still trying to hard. Just wait for the FAQ. Which will prove Dash wrong

I was 50/50 on the PtP issue on your side. On this one, I'm positive. It would require broad redefining of the core rules for this to work in the GK favor.

While I am 100% on your side in this argument, it will not.

Precedent?

An embarked Psyker can target himself with abilities, can affect things outside of his transport with abilities.
An embarked Psyker cannot be targetted with abilities, and cannot be affected by things outside of his transport (Whether targetted or not).

When there are rules expressly saying how to target a unit embarked in a vehicle, GW goes against it and says you cannot.

You can be on the other side of 22" of BLOS terrain, but that Librarian in a Rhino is going to keep any Area of Effect abilities from doing anything to him while his psychic hood targets you.

GW will FAQ it however they damn please, they could give two gaks about RAW, they'll change it however they intend.

How about this logic?

"If the Grey Knight Unit suffers Perils of the Warp...it is resolved against the Justicar or Knight of Flame..."

Almost everyone has been arguing about whether or not the CoM is an attack. Let's say, for argument's sake, that it's not. Perils of the Warp is also not an attack. But it's clear from GW's standpoint that they do not want the entire unit, even though it counts as a single psyker, to suffer the Perils. They want one model to suffer, and not the entire unit. To me, this points clearly to what the FAQ or Errata will say when it comes out. GW does not intend for the entire unit to treated as a groups of psykers. They intend for one model to face anti-psyker shenanigans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Perils, a non-attack being resolved against a single model instead of the group, even when that group is a single psyker...does that not set a precedent?

I'm fairly close to agreeing with Dash on this one, but the only thing stopping me is that his biggest reason for the test to continuously keep affecting models is his idea that after using his Delf ability, you cannot have any psykers left on the board that have not tested.

I disagree.. just like anything else, models are targeted at the time the test is made.

For comparison sake, lets use another offensive test, Stern's Zone of Banishment.

It's actually pretty damn similar.

1) It's a test, not an attack.
2) Random range.
3) Specifies models in range, not units specifically.

To apply Dash's logic..

1) Stern declares power.
2) Stern passes Ld.
3) D6 is rolled. Assume six inch result.
4) Models make tests. Some fail.
5) New models on the fringe of the melee take the place of dead one.
6) All new models moving up have to make a Str or die untill the entire six inch area has passed a Str Test.

No thanks.


I think CoM pulls a single psyker, as thats all the test hinges on for the GK's. It doesn't keep refreshing itself over and over again.

IMHO anyways.

Dashofpepper wrote:
1. CoM is not a weapon. Weapon *is* defined in the rulebook methinks? Crucible has no strength, no AP value, no roll to hit or wound, nor does it use the strength of the bearer.

How about the intro about building an army that says that codices contain complete rules for the models, weapons, and wargear? The codex exceptions take precedence over the rulebook conventions. Last I checked Crucible of Malediction was a weapon according to the same wording that outlines how to use it whether it has a strength or type in its weapon profile or not.

So you do not like that it says it is a weapon? Well, I do not like how it says it effects Psykers. The things we do not like are stated clearly however, whether we like it or not, but in one case I am cherry picking what I do not like, and in the other case you are cherry picking what you do not like. You've omitted information for advantage.

Dashofpepper wrote:
2. You claim that an attack is a hostile action taken with hostile intent. Moving, running and fleeting towards the enemy fall into that category. So does deploying your army on the table against someone. In fact, all the things preceeding an attack would also be attacks by that definition.

I've presented a definition of attack for 40k. It follows all the tenets and examples in the rules, and is generic as possible. If you don't like it, give a reason why you disagree, some evidence that it isn't a good one (like an example of an accepted attack that isn't included), and improve on my definition or replace it.

Where is the rulebook definition of attack? Oh, you meant you gave us your definition of attack. I see. You compare general rules for shooting and assault with the highly specific and unique instructions for use of Crucible of Malediction. You cited these rulebook examples that have absolutely no relation to the Crucible, which is by design a unique codex item that defines its own application, and then went on to say that because the Crucible of Malediction has its own specific codex rules that do not conveniently fit in standard shoot or assault rules it must not be an attack. That is not how it works. You have yet to reference the subset of rules that clearly defines what an attack is. You've spoken of rules for general shooting or close combat that use the word attack within the rules but these are not rules that talk about or need to apply to Crucible of Malediction.

Shenra wrote:How about this logic?

"If the Grey Knight Unit suffers Perils of the Warp...it is resolved against the Justicar or Knight of Flame..."

Almost everyone has been arguing about whether or not the CoM is an attack. Let's say, for argument's sake, that it's not. Perils of the Warp is also not an attack. But it's clear from GW's standpoint that they do not want the entire unit, even though it counts as a single psyker, to suffer the Perils. They want one model to suffer, and not the entire unit. To me, this points clearly to what the FAQ or Errata will say when it comes out. GW does not intend for the entire unit to treated as a groups of psykers. They intend for one model to face anti-psyker shenanigans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Perils, a non-attack being resolved against a single model instead of the group, even when that group is a single psyker...does that not set a precedent?

This actually supports it not being an attack, as it SPECIFICALLY states Perils, a non-attack, affects them. It goes out of it's way to pick something that would affect only a psyker, that isn't an attack, and name it. This shows that they are aware there are things that aren't attacks that affect psykers and they addressed ONE specifically. They could've easily said, "Anything attacks or abilities that target psykers (Such as perils in the warp, etc.)". Look at Lady Malys, her ability doesn't say "Psychic attacks" it says, "Psychic powers". Clearly GW is cognizant of the fact that there are more than just attacks out there.

Hulksmash wrote:Oh and it's not because they are Space Marines! It's because they aren't Tyranids.....DE's FAQ didn't nerf them at all if I recall.

No, it didn't nerf the whole codex, I will give you that, it just nerfed the best vehicle and special character in the game, especially for their points cost. Oh yeah, and it nerfed the implosion missile badly. I love how you can allocate wounds that aren't wounds......

@Thunderfrog. I think you slightly misunderstood Dash. He didn't mean that it sits there forever, and that anything that moves in range as per your example is effected, because nothing can move in your Shooting phase but you using a run. But, if it is used in the Shooting phase, it would last for the phase, and seeing as you use it, you can't run. But basically you roll your range, and lets say you get 11" for range, and you have a ful GK squad within range. What Dash says is that if you resolve on the Justicar, and he fails, you remove him if its an attack. But then you still have the same psyker within the range that failed the test. It breaks the rules of the CoM. That is also why, if the justicar dies, it then says for BoP that you resolve against a random model. Hence the repeat against the unit if you resolve only against the Justicar, as it is technically a new psyker as the unit. The Justicar died when he was the psyker, now the new head honcho is a psyker to resolve against, so he has to test. If he dies, then the next replacement has to test. Its all still during the same shooting phase.

A bad example, but one that basically covers the same premise of doing it over and over is the supagatling gun, except that it causes hits and wounds.