Corn

I think she would also go really well in a Lucius Crew with White Eyes- White Eyes certainly can make use of the added shielding that Bura and her Vanguard models bring to the table.  

But if you wanted to proxy her as a DMH Nicodem... I don't think anyone would bat an eye.  

There isn't really a clear answer to this.  I have a suspicion that Wyrd will errata this and when they do issue that guidance I would gamble they will clarify it to just summon 1 Eyes and Ears.   

Anyway, the rules in question.

Quote

Join Us:  Once per turn.  Enemy Only. Target gains a parasite token.  Until the End Phase, after the target is killed, summon an Eyes and Ears into base contact with it.

Quote

“ONCE PER” EFFECTS A model can only take an Action or Ability that is once per Activation once during an Activation. A model can only take an Action or Ability that is once per Turn once on any given Turn. These Restrictions are all by Action (or Ability) and model, so a given model could, for example, take multiple once per Activation effects so long as they were on different Actions or Abilities. Additionally, multiple models that have the same Action (or Ability) with a once per Activation can each use that effect once per Activation. Some of these effects have additional modifiers, such as being restricted to targeting a specific model once per Activation. These work the same way, with the specific Restrictions mentioned.

So "Once Per Turn" is a per model limitation.  So each Nexus Kid can declare it once per turn.   You could argue that this is unclear, because the rules specifically spell out that multiple models can use the same once per activation ability on their turns, but similar language is not present in once per turn abilities.  However there is nothing in the rules that would support denying multiple nexus kids from declaring the trigger, and there is nothing stopping them from declaring the trigger on the same enemy model.  

And a comparable question answered by the FAQ

Quote

10. Challenge – Are the effect of the Challenge Action cumulative? a) Yes. A model can be under the effect of two different Challenge Actions provided they are generated from different models.

Challenge is comparable because it is an effect that is placed on a model, that is not a status ailment- such as fast, slow, etc.  The general rules shown by challenge is that as long as different models are applying an effect they stack.    Now, this is a comparable and its not really binding, as the FAQ specifically only addresses Challenge and not other statuses.  But the rules don't really lay out a solid ground rule on whether or not conditions like this stack, and whenever this has cropped up before, it has been ruled in favor of staking.  

So, as far as I can tell, the effects would stack, on the same model, and if you killed that model, you could get up to three Eyes and Ears (one for each Nex Kid who hit the trigger).  

THAT SAID, if you value friendships and opponents willing to play against you, I would highly recommend self policing here.  Nexus2 is already by and large considered one of the most powerful Masters in the game- up with Yan Lo2, Hoff2, and Justice2, and Nex Kids are still insanely powerful even if you limit yourself to a single Eyes and Ears Summon off their triggers.   So unless you are in a cut throat environment, like a tourney, I would highly recommend playing it as not stacking, and its not a bad idea to get used to it not staking, as I think an errata of Nex Kids will take that away as its a low effort fix.  

So there are a few ways to look at it.  

If your husband is looking to get into the game properly, than he should pick the keyword that excites him the most.  I wouldn't worry too much about faction or match up, you've still got to collect the models, build the models, and paint the models, and learn the models... and that is a lot to do when you are excited about the crew.   The best thing he can do is look through the factions, and look through the masters, and go with the one that he vibes with the most.  

If you are looking to recreate classic Malifaux encounters, I would consider opposing the Marshal crew to a Resser crew, like Seamus (Red Chappel) or Doc. McMourning (Experimental), or any of the others honestly.  If you are feeling extra spicy you could even opt for Dead Man's Hand for Nicodem, and recreate his last stand against Lady Justice.  Death Marshal's vs Ressurectionists is a classic Malifaux matchup.  

4 minutes ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

Step 3 is the only place where you check for legal targets for an action, unless you can point to something else in the rulebook that I’ve missed. You can know all the factors before you get to that step, but knowing an action will fail doesn’t prevent you from declaring it in step 1. 

It does if before you reach step one... you are required to determine whether you are able to make a melee attack targeting the model.  

You have to resolve the sentence in Bring It before even reaching step 1 for the melee attack, and that language requires us to check to make sure a model is able to make the melee attack targeting the Bring It model, and if it is so able, then it must make that attack.  

So when we are resolving Bring It, we have to determine whether the target is able to make a melee attack targeting this model.  Once we determine if the model is able (as we must do when resolving Bring It), then we proceed with step 1 for the melee attack.   

Basically, what you are trying to do for whatever reason, is ignore the language of Bring It, and you can't do that.  

 We are at Step 5 applying results for Bring It, and when resolving that language it requires us to check if "a model is able to make a melee attack targeting this model"

To put it another way, your interpretation is a direct violation of Bring It's language.  Because if the Marshal could chose the box and purposefully be out of range... than the Model could have made an attack targeting Bernadette... but didn't.  Which is in direct violation of the MUST part of Bring It.   

You have to check, otherwise you violate the Rules as Written for Bring It.  Its not a normal attack action, its one specifically compelled by a different action, so you have to play by Bring It's rules. 

Bring It simply says if you are able then you must.  So you have to determine if you are able.  You don't get to lock yourself out of something you are able to do.  You either are able to do it or not.  

I did, because we aren't moving backwards in sequence.  We are at Step 5 applying results for Bring It, and when resolving that language it requires us to check if "a model is able to make a melee attack targeting this model"

You can't just ignore the language of Bring It, and you can't just pretend that Bring It says something else... so we have to determine whether the model is so able, and so we have to check in order to properly resolve Bring It.  

Well... remember we are already at a slight deviation from the normal sequencing already, because the action we are talking about is nested in resolving effects section of another action, and its heavily modified by the resolving effects section of that other action.   Its a bit of a different scenario than if the model declared the attack normally during its own activation.

So the step in Bring it's Resolution (Step 5) reads as follows.  

Quote

"(must take a  Action ... targeting this model), if able"

The targeting rules read as follows:

Quote

"If the Action requires a target, the target must be declared at this step. The target must be within the Action’s range as well as within LoS of the model taking the Action, unless specified otherwise. If an Action has no legal target, it fails"

So lets say Bernadette uses Bring It on a Death Marshal.  We've got 1 inch melee Blade, and 0 inch melee Box.  Bring It says the model must do something if it is able to (take a melee action... targeting this model).  So we are obligated to determine whether the Marshal is able to "(make a melee attack... targeting this model)" and there is nothing in Bring It's language that would prevent us from checking both of its attacks.  

So lets say as we resolve Bring It, the Marshal shows up within 1 inch of Bernadette, but not in B2B.  

We check box and find that it cannot satisfy the targeting language because the target is not within the Action's range.   According to Bring It, this means that the Death Marshal is not able to "make a melee attack targeting this model" with Pine Box. 

So we check the blade and find that it can satisfy the targeting language because the target is within the Action's range and line of sight.  According to Bring It, this means that the Death Marshal is able to "make a melee attack targeting this model" with Peacebringer Blade.  

So when we are resolving Bring It, we determine that the Marshal is able to make a melee attack targeting this model (with the Peacebringer Blade) and so it must.  

If the Marshal had ended up in B2B, both Box and Blade would satisfy the Bring It resolution language, and the Marshal would be able to pick which one it used.  

Then we resolve the attack.  

Bring It specifically requires us to determine whether a model is able to (make a melee attack targeting this model), and if it is able than it is compelled to do so. To argue that a model that is able to make the melee attack, would be able to choose not to because it has another attack on the card blatantly disregards the language of Bring It.  So to comply with Step 5 when we are resolving Bring It... we have to check any melee attacks a model is able to make to see if any of them satisfy the requirements.       

Its not like this breaks the game either.  Most models only have 1 attack, and a player always knows what is and is not a legal target anyway because Malifaux allows pre measuring.

To me, the main draws of the Warden are as follows. 

1) It is reasonably cheap and reasonably durable.  At 5 soul stones, it is the second cheapest augmented model, and if you are playing a strategy where you need significant bodies, such as controlling markers in Guard the Stash... Wardens are a good hire to boost your numbers without giving up durability. 

2) As already mentioned, they have ruthless, so are a good counter pick if you know you will be going up against a lot of terrifying or manipulative.

3) They are reasonably efficient, pursue kicks 'em up to stat 6, auto slow on their rocket fist launcher is a good debuff, solid triggers on Hurricane Punch (such as using knock aside to shove an enemy into a non-scoring position, such as in Covert Operation).  Its just a good cost effective all around model, which is nice to have in a crew that can get as elite as Hoff.

On the whole, I feel like the Warden is going to be a safe pick, a good generalist to help you keep your numbers up, but may not be as effective depending on niche circumstances.  

Watcher is a cheaper and a lot faster, may be preferable if you need a quick scheme runner for the flanks, but may not be preferable if you need a significant model to stick in a contested area (like Guard the Stash or Covert Operation above).

Riot Breaker is going to be better if you expect your opponent to rely heavily on destructible terrain (Justice2) or out of activation actions... but if you don't expect those things, its probably not worth it over a Warden.

Hunters are expensive at 8 ss.  Sometimes you may want more numbers than they can offer you.  

You get the idea.  

Your response to the Action chain in applying bring it was the gramatical challenge.  You didn't raise any other points in my breakdown of how the rules apply to gunfighter.

You say that you think it adds a "targeting requirement during step 3 only" but you have no language to support your assertion... so it is not RAW.

57 minutes ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

So the entire conversation around the resolving actions steps is irrelevant then?

Of course not, I covered the applicable rules and analysis here in great detail with the correct conclusion.

You can dismiss grammar as pedantic all you want, but at the end of the day it governs the construction of language, and the words as written are governed by language.  It is disingenuous to dismiss grammar as pedantic when we are discussing RAW and how the sentences that make up the rules are written has everything to do with arriving at the correct answer.  

The rule as written is that "(The model must make a melee attack targeting this model), if able."  So to determine the interaction with gunfighter we ask the simple question;  Can the model make a melee attack targeting this model?  It can, so it must.  Nothing more to it.  

The reason I "latched onto" this point, is because it was literally the only point you made which could rebut this straightforward reading of the rules.  It appears to be the hill that you have to die on, because otherwise you can't avoid answering yes to the question of "can the model make a melee attack against this model?".  Everything else you've said is largely superfluous to this point as it requires us to essentially agree to read the rule contrary to the way it is written.   (I also didn't really address the point about models with multiple engagement ranges because I can go either way on that one, and its not what the original question was, and it was already confusing enough with two logic chains going on simultaneously, so I was reigning back to the original question regarding gunfighter).  

If you don't agree with the RAW, your group is absolutely free to house rule it however you please.  If Wyrd feels that this is not the RAI, they are free to errata or FAQ it.  But you have to address the way Wyrd chose to write the sentence if you are going to argue that the rules as written aren't as I say.  

15 minutes ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

I’m not terribly interested in an argument on the formal and informal uses of commas. It can be read that way, particularly when you take it in the context of the targeting rules. 
 

So... your counter argument about why the clause should be arbitrarily broken up basically boils down to... "I don't care about grammar".  The sentence is constructed in English, just because you can't be bothered to care about how it is constructed doesn't mean you can interpret it any way you feel like it when we are talking about what the "rules as written" are.  How the language is constructed is integral to RAW.  

What I am saying is that there is no indication whatsoever in the sentence that would instruct us to read the sentence in the way you are splitting it up.   Whether or not you care about commas and clauses in the English language doesn't make them any less important when determining the rules as written when they are written in English.  

EDIT:  As I said, I'm a bit shakey on the Models with multiple engagement ranges, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the main question regarding gunfighter.  

50 minutes ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

The issue with this, is that the “if able” part of Bring It could be read to be specific to the targeting requirement.

I think the point is fairly clear if you just change the emphasis to "the model must make a melee action targeting this model, if able."

This would effectively add a condition step that the Bring It model must be the declared target during step 3. 

I agree that a model can’t be compelled to pay a cost. But I don’t see how that’s a problem. The Bring It model “..must be the target, if able” but nothing explicitly requires that the action not fail before the targeting step.

Essentially my opinion is that Bring It basically adds a requirement during step 3 that the Bring It model must be the declared target. If it’s not a legal target at this point, the action just fails. 

How are you coming to this conclusion?  There is a comma there and it tells us how to read it and split the clauses. 

(the model must make a melee action targeting this model) is then modified by (if able).  The clauses are determined by the placement of the comma.  Basically, you are implying that we should violate very basic grammar rules to limit the "if able" to only apply to a portion of the clause (in this case targeting).   The rules are written in English and as such rules of English grammar apply to their interpretation.   

This sentence is not ambiguous... and I've seen some ambiguous sentences in miniature wargaming.  If a model is able to (make a melee action targeting this model), it must.   

What basis are you using to divide up the first clause? 

44 minutes ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

Also, you don’t declare illegal targets, you check for legal targets to declare. I believe this is an important distinction. 

That is the confusion i have, because Bring It specifies what the target must be.  The target must be the Bring It model.  So if you can't declare against an illegal target, than you must choose the attack that can hit that model.  If you can declare against an illegal target, you can declare the shorter attack, causing it to fail at step three.  In my opinion it would make more sense if selecting a target was part of step 1, and you needed a legal target to declare an action.  But the rules aren't written like that, which is why its confusing.  

I think its worth quoting the Action Rules here, which state in relevant part on page 23 the order of operations that we need to follows.  

Quote

 

Step 1: Declare the Action Announce what Action the model is taking. Some Actions have Special Restrictions. If these restrictions aren’t met, the Action cannot be declared.

Step 2: Pay any Costs If the Action has any costs in italics, they must be paid now, and are considered paid when declaring the Action. If the costs are not paid, the Action fails; skip steps 3, 4, and 5. Costs that reference an Action’s target must instead be paid as part of declaring the target (step 3). Otherwise, the model cannot be targeted.

Step 3: Targeting In addition to Special Restrictions and costs, some Actions have targeting restrictions also written in italics and restrict the Action in some way, such as limiting the Action to targeting Construct models only or targeting Scheme Markers. If the Action requires a target, the target must be declared at this step. The target must be within the Action’s range as well as within LoS of the model taking the Action, unless specified otherwise. If an Action has no legal target, it fails; skip steps 4, 5, and 6. A model may not target itself with an Attack Action. If an Action requires a model to choose an object (model, marker, etc.) the object is not treated as being targeted and ignores any effects from targeting. Unless otherwise mentioned, every Action with a target must target a single model.

Step 4: Perform Duels If the Action requires a duel, the model now performs the duel (pg. 10). If the initiating model does not succeed on the duel, the Action fails and Step 5 of resolving an Action is not performed. Some Actions have additional effects that affect an Action’s duel (such as ignoring Concealment). These effects are listed next to the Action in italics. If no duel was required, then the Action is automatically successful.

Step 5: Apply Results The model performs the Action’s effects, as stated on the card, in the order they are listed. If any of an Action’s effects cannot be resolved, they are ignored. A model is considered to be resolving an Action during every part of the “Resolving Actions” process. For instance, if a model was in Hazardous Terrain (pg. 37) during any part of the “Resolving Actions” process, the effects of the Hazardous Terrain are applied to the model after the Action resolves. The most common effect of an Action is damage, which is explained on page 24.

Step 6: After Resolving Any effects that happen after an Action is resolved, including any After Resolving and After Succeeding Triggers happen at this time. Remember: Triggers that do not specify a timing are assumed to be After Succeeding Triggers.

 

Applying these rules to an example of Ironsides using Bring It on a Gunsmith, we come to the following.  

1.1 Ironsides declares Bring It. 

1.2 Bring It does not have any costs.

1.3 Ironsides declares the Gunsmith as the target.  Checks range and line of sight, the action fails if these are not met. 

1.4 Duels are performed, The Gunsmith elects to relent (pg 10) and Ironsides flips.   Ironsides needs to flip or cheat a 6 to hit the target number, assuming this is the case, she declares any triggers, and we move on. 

1.5  We apply the results, in the order they are listed.  So first the Gunsmith moves move +2 towards ironsides.  Then we come to the sentence in question.  "Then, the target must make a melee action targeting this model, if able. [neg damage flip, no triggers]. 

This is the step we are at.  

The language we are resolving in bring it specifically says that "the model must make a melee action targeting this model, if able."  So we look at the gunsmith's card.  Is the gunsmith "able" to make a melee action?  The answer is yes.  Because Gunfighter states that the Gunsmith "may treat its ranged action as a melee action with range 1."  So the gunsmith is able, and thus must make the melee action targeting Ironsides.  Any other interpretation explicitly ignores the words as written on the Bring It Ability.  

2.1 The Gunsmith declares Custom Fire Arm 1 inch melee, because it must make the attack that it is able to make.  

2.2 Custom Firearm does not have any costs.

2.3 The Gunsmith declares Ironsides as a target, and checks range and line of sight, the action fails if these are not met. 

2.4 Duels are performed.   In this case, you likely do not want to relent, so that you can cheat the attack to miss.   No triggers are declared on this attack pursuant to Bring It.  

2.5 If the attack hits, we resolve the results and an additional neg modifier is added pursuant to Bring It.  

2.6 There are no after resolving effects.  

1.6 Bring it has no after resolving effects.  

So this is how the rules as written apply to bring it when we run it through the Action Rules on page 23.   Going through this in more detail, I want to revisit and revise a few of my prior interpretations.  

Welding Torch cannot be compelled to spend power tokens.  Because costs are declared prior to determining targeting, those can be paid or not paid prior to declaring a target.  Bring it cannot compel Welding Torch to spend power tokens and it will fail on targeting.  

Cold Snap can be compelled to make the strike if the target is within 1 inch of an ice pillar but outside of 1 inch of Raspy.  This is because Cold Snap does not have any costs to declare it.  This is because when determining range an line of sight, Raspy may draw them from the Ice Piller, so Ironsides is within range and line of sight of Raspy's cold snap whenever she is within 1 inch of an ice pillar, so it passes the range and line of sight check and proceeds to duels. 

A Challenged model can be compelled to discard a card.  This is because Challenge adds a cost that "references the actions target" so it is paid during the declaring a target step.  So Challenge will reach step 3, and must discard the card as part of declaring the Bring It Model as the target.  

Finally, for a Model with multiple engagement ranges.  I'm on the fence here, mostly due to the targeting language being unclear.  Here is what I mean. 

Quote

If the Action requires a target, the target must be declared at this step. The target must be within the Action’s range as well as within LoS of the model taking the Action, unless specified otherwise. If an Action has no legal target, it fails

This is poorly worded because it raises the question of "can a model target something that is beyond range and line of sight?".  We know that "if there is no legal target it fails" which is somewhat odd in a game with premeasuring where you presumably always know when something is a legal target or not.  We know that the target "must" be within the Action's range and LoS.  So the question then becomes can you declare an action against an illegal target?  a) If you can't, because the target is illegal, then you have to choose the melee attack that can target Ironsides.  b) If you can than you can target an illegal target, you essentially could "discover" that Tony is an "illegal" target at step 3, and cause the melee attack to fail.  I tend to agree more with option a, as b in this case is typically more applicable to games that lack premeasuring (such as bolt action), where the intent of the rules is to catch players out by failing to guess distance appropriately.  

Must trumping May isn't just "Oxfordian" its a basic tenant of rules interpretation, whether we are talking about legal contracts, role playing games, or table top miniature games. It is no different than the convention that Specific trumps General, and others.  All a miniature game is, at the end of the day, is a collection of models governed by rules, and we interpret those rules according to established convention.   Deviating from these conventions is a house rule, and not official.  These rules can also be changed via FAQs or Erratas from the developers if they don't like a certain rules interaction.  

Lets look at each of your three examples, because I don't think they propose... well any problem at all.  

1) Challenge.  "the target must discard a card to target any model other than this model with an action"  I see no reason why this cannot coexist with Bring It.  Bring It says you must declare the melee attack, and since a melee attack is also an action that requires a target, I see nothing wrong with Bring It forcing a model under the effect of Challenge to discard a card.  If anything that is smart play and comboing abilities which is in large part what a skrimish game like Malifaux is about. 

2) Cold Snap.  "This model may draw LoS and Range from ice pillar markers within aura 8" I don't see an issue here either.  The only time this would come up is if the Bring It Model targeted the Cold Snap model while standing within 1 inch of an Ice Pillar.   That is a pretty narrow use case, and if Rasputina can make a melee attack, I see no reason why Bring It would not trigger it in that narrow niche circumstance. 

3) Welding Torch. "Discard any number of power tokens, for each discarded increase the range of this action by 2".  This doesn't even use the word may, so we are already implying that may is included there.  This is a really niche circumstance that would only impact Charles Hoffman himself.   Hoffman's move is 4, so Bring It would make him move 6 inches.  Bring It has a 12 inch range, so in theory, if you caught Hoffman at near max range, you could force him to dump 3 power tokens into a melee attack.   First, I think this interaction is niche enough that it doesn't matter, and if it is a big issue, this is something that should be addressed via an FAQ or Errata.  Hoffman must make the attack per Bring It.  He can thanks to his power tokens.  I see this as more of a creative way to answer some of the things Hoffman does more than a problem with the rules.  

Check the FAQ, because remember that FAQs also generally speaking specific, and while they overrule general rules, they are frequently specific to the interaction that they address.  If you do in fact have an FAQ cite that demonstrates your point, then yes.  If you don't, you have to follow conventions of rules interpretations, as with any mini game.  

With respect to the FAQ you could try to argue #22.  Which in fairness is the one I would hang my hat on if I was arguing in the alternative.  

Quote

22. If an effect of a model has the “Once per X” restriction that says the model “may” do something, can it choose not to in order to avoid using its “Once per X” limit?

a) Yes. Effects that say a model “may” do something are optional for a player and can always be forgone should a player not wish to activate the effect. However, other “Once per X” effects that do not say “may” must be used at the first opportunity and cannot be used again within the same limit.

And emphasize the second sentence of the answer.  I would hold that this interpretation is limited to the specific question asked regarding "Once per X" limited abilities, I don't think this is a compelling answer for the situation at hand because it does not address the question of whether must trumps may which is central to this question, and it is an answer to a specific question, so is most reasonably interpreted as applying to once per X limited abilities.  

Moreover, where the Developers have found an issue, they have specifically addressed it through Errata, such as Asami's crew not permitting enemy controlled actions to add Flicker tokens.  

Anyway, to close out.  You talk about being afraid to open up a can of worms, and I would counter that you are opening up more cans of worms with your proposed interpretation, such as:

Does Gunfighter give a model a quantum engagement range such that it both is and is not engaging a model at the same time? Such as for Hidden Martyrs or One More Question?

So I reject your dichotomy if whether or not "must overrules the controller-decided ruleset".  If you use Bring It on a friendly Gunsmith... you chose to do that and thus you also chose to accept the consequences of your decision.  I also don't think any of the examples you brought up demonstrate at all that the game would break if Gun Fighter's 1 inch melee was required to be activated by a "must" order, in fact some of those examples feel wrong on a fundamental level (such as your proposal that a challenge condition would magically turn off the attack portion of Bring It).  

No other way to put it, updating to a new edition can always be painful, although having a large pre existing collection can help ease the transition a lot.   Especially as models get shuffled around, and new totems and henchmen get added into the game that don't line up with older boxes.  The old Lucius box for instance would not include his new Henchmen Agent 46, and if you wanted to play Dashel, you would need to obtain a copy of his totem- the Dispatcher.  

It can be helpful to identify which models are important to your crews, and only sold in core boxes.   It may be worth it to find a suitable proxy, it may be worth it to use a 3rd party who sells individual models at a mark up.   If the model was repackaged, you may be able to find an older individual kit from Wyrd as well- such as through the Malifaux Classics or M2E sections on their webstore (you could obtain Queeg this way for instance).  

Either way, chances are as you ease back into the game, you'll want to do some research as to what individual pieces you need to bring your keywords up to speed, and figure out how to obtain those models efficiently.  

Sometimes you'll just straight up lose models and masters.  Nicodem is dead mans hand now... so he can't be played in most tournaments.  If you collected Nico... he is gone now.  Same with Ramos.  Some masters migrated factions, Guild players no longer have access to Lucas McCabe or Doc McMorning.  If you have those models... you can either start looking to play them in another faction... or try to sell / trade them to a friend.  

The rules are a bit easier.  The Crew Builder app offered by Wyrd is amazing, and has all the cards, all the upgrades, and has options to track wounds and status.  It has everything you need to start playing with your models.  

If you want faster tracking, Wyrd also offers all of the stat cards and upgrades free for download on their website, so you can print them out, and stick them into card sleeves to track with a dry erase marker.   Its worth checking these out anyway even if you have the cards to make sure that your cards are up to date due to the occasional errata.  

I would respectfully disagree here based on the words used in both abilities.

4 hours ago, Tors said:

Bring it says "[...] target must take a melee action [...]

gunfighter says "[...] may treat [...] ranged actions as having a range of meele 1"."

Can the target of bring it choose to not apply gunfighter, thus circumventing the melee action (given there are no other possible melee actions on his card)?

Must is going to be controlling because it conveys definitiveness and compulsion.  If a model must do something, then it is compelled to do the thing if it is so able.  When Bring It is used, the model is compelled to make a melee attack unless doing so is impossible.  

May on the other hand denotes a possibility.   If a model may do something than it has the option of doing the thing.  When Gunfighter is present on a model it gives that model the possibility of using their firearm to make a melee attack at range 1.  

So if Bring It is used on a model with Gunfighter, that model is is compelled to make a melee attack if it is so able, the only exception is if it is impossible for it to make a melee attack (such as being out of range or not having any way to get one on its card).   If a model has Gunfighter, then it is possible for it to make a melee attack because the ability allows the model to make a melee attack with their firearm... so it is compelled to use that option to do so because Bring It specifies that it must.  

You could however, make sure to use Bring It from a safe distance.  Bring It has a 12 inch range, so as long as the model end's its movement +2 outside of their melee range, it will be impossible for them to make the required melee attack and it will fail.  

You might also look at Lady Justice in Guild.  She is an iconic sword wielder and her title version is really good (even if the coffin markers will likely be toned down a bit).

The Viks in outcast are also really iconic sword wielders. 

I completely agree with the others in this thread.  Good out of keyword hires are like the Lawyer (can be bought on Malifaux Classics in a 1 pack if you don't want to go in on Lucius' core box) and the Steward (for clearing status- including slow on summoned in units, and a bit of healing support), Pale Rider is also a guild all star and definitely always worth looking at.  But in general, you are going to want to find a balance that vibes with you.  Some players like to lean more into melee (Executioners), some players like to lean more into blasting (DCU, Riflemen).  You are going to have to start playing around with hiring compositions to find what you vibe with most and what most fits your playstyle and the objectives at hand.  

So I would start with all the Guard boxes, the Guild Steward, maybe a Lawyer (either Classic or Lucius core box if you want to start branching into multiple Guild Masters), maybe Pale Rider who is always good and can find a place in the crew of any Guild Master.   Then just experiment with different unit comps and you'll start getting a handle on what to bring to what.  

For example, if you are playing say, Guard the Stash... maybe you want to lean a bit more heavily into Wardens than you normally would, because they are relatively cheap and relatively durable minions who can be difficult to remove from strategy markers.   You're just going to have to get some games in and start learning your models, nothing more too it.  

One really nice thing about Dashel compared to other masters, is while you may pay a bit more up front for his full keyword, you actually get the full value of all of the models you buy.  Because he can summon to fill holes, there are times where you may be glad you have the full unit cap of the different guardsmen due to being able to summon them in various ways.   Compared to say, Lady Justice... where the base kit comes with 3 death marshals, but you'll only realistically field 1 or 2, or how Lone Marshal comes with 2 Exorcists who aren't very good and you won't typically ever field them.   With Dashel, you are milking the value from your boxes, and you're always glad you have the models on hand.  

1 hour ago, Arko said:

Yeah that feeling when you spend 1 month to choose your army in a new game 😅

He doesn't really want to use proxies, as he likes things being clear on the table, plus, to jump on your question, we are planning to go in tournaments as soon as we can, that is why we are already looking for advices to buy the good things before jumping in, as we don't have illimited amount of money unfortunately. We want to avoid buying boxes for nothing. I may change my Pandora and let him pick Dreamer if my friend doesn't find anything, I am less "difficult" than him and can switch to Ressers, as I like most of the casters in that faction.

 Yes Arcanists fits his favourite gameplay, the problems are the minis, I noticed that in this game, the minis have so much identity and personality that either you love them or you hate them. That is his case in Arcanists. He only likes Raspy and Kaeris in that faction. Kaeris is still in his options, but not as high as the Dreamer. I think he needs to think for a few days, he spent so much time looking at the minis, reading all of you and looking at videos that he is going to have a burn out of Malifaux before even starting the game 😄

Dude, the planning of a new crew or army is always the best part.  I love list building.   Sometimes I gaze wistfully over the other side of the fence and wonder what my life would be like if I played Neverborn or Gremlins.  

Honestly, he should play whatever makes him happy.  If he likes Dreamer and other NB masters, he should play that faction.   Note that in a tournament setting it could be mutually beneficial to both of you if you both play Neverborn, as it would let you lean on each other and share out of keyword models and tech pieces with each other.   Also note that a lot of crew boxes come with way more models in the box than you will ever realistically field, giving your extra copies to each other will help both of your collections become more robust.   So contrary to stepping on eachother's toes, its just as likely you would have a symbiotic relationship within the faction.  

Finally, he could also give Guild a second look.  While not as much of a "magical" faction as arcanists, it is home to Sonnia who is one of the most iconic mages in Malifaux, and her title version slaps.   Sonnia is one of the blastiest magic users in the entire game, and Witch Hunters have access to a bunch of solid mage units, including Guild Mages who are really strong versatile pieces, Sanctioned Spellcasters who are cheap effective minions with easy access to fast, and Spelleaters from Cadmus who are surprisingly durable and tricky mages.   Outside of Sonnia's crew, Hoffman has a magical connection to machines so in a sense he is a technomancer (and he is also one of the most competitive masters in the entire game), and Lucius has some of that Neverborn appeal, as well as the whole, "law is magic" theme going on with his lawyers.   

EDIT: And while Nellie isn't a mage or magic themed... she does so much weird shit (especially her title version) that she feels like a mage.  

4 hours ago, Arko said:

So that leads me to a question : As Lynch as a 2d version, do you think my friend can still do something and not finish last in every tournament with only Lynch 1 and 2?

I mean, we aren't talking about "finishing last" in every tournament.  Good play is going to be the biggest factor in the vast majority of circumstances, and the quality of opponents at tournaments can vary wildly depending on scale, and what the local community looks like.   You can do perfectly fine with a single master that you know inside and out.  

What we are talking about are little advantages here and there that add up over time.  Obviously like in any competitive tabletop game there is no "sure thing", but we do what we can to give ourselves the best odds.  Playing and knowing multiple masters in the same faction is one of those advantages you can give yourself in most Malifaux tournament formats.   Its also worth noting that collecting different masters within a faction can offer access to various out of keyword tech pieces- such as the Lawyers from Lucius' core box being one of the best out of keyword hires in the entire Guild... even if you never field Lucius in a competitive event being able to shove a lawyer into Sonnia or Dashel is dope.  

Your friend will still be able to win if he plays pure Lynch and nothing else.  He is just giving up one of the small competitive edges that is available to him, and any competitive player knows that those small edges do matter from time to time. 

That said, Lucas McCabe is dope master... I am still sad that Guild lost him.  

One thing to keep in mind for tournaments, is they are often single faction, as opposed to single master or keyword.  Obviously, GG3 has some exceptions to this, and an organizer could choose to run a single keyword tournament.  But the vast majority of tournaments require you to declare a faction, and you can play any master within that faction for each round of the tournament.  

What this means is that because certain masters are often a bit better at various strategies and schemes than other masters, you can give yourself a competitive edge by choosing the master who is best suited to the strategy and schemes at hand.  For example, a murder Master who excels into Cursed Objects may not be as effective into Carve a Path as a more control or interact oriented Master / crew.  

In a tournament setting, a player who collected 3 masters within the same faction is going to have a competitive edge over a player who collected 3 masters from different factions.   The single faction player will be able to choose the master / list they have that is best suited for the strategy and schemes in each round, while the other player will not be able to change master to best suit the strategy / schemes.  This competitive edge can be the difference between making a top table or getting edged out by a player of equal or even slightly lesser skill who can bring lists better suited to the strategy.  

This is mitigated to an extent by the overpowered S tier masters introduced in Malifaux Burns.  If you are playing Hoff2, Justice2, Nexus2, Yanlo2, etc you may be overpowered enough to just brute force through whatever.  But I would expect a heavy round of nerfs to a lot of the worst offenders so that won't be the case forever.  

You should always choose your first master based off aethetic and playstyle, but if you are competitive player, your should choose your second and third masters from the same faction as your first master... otherwise you are putting yourself at a disadvantage against players of equal skill to you in a tournament environment.  

And its worth noting that even if you don't hire any Stalkers, you still want the models on hand due to summoning.   If you play Sonnia 1, you will have Stalkers on the table, its almost an inevitability.  

2 hours ago, Arko said:

Thats is why I asked about Jacob Lynch, as we wonder why he is in the ten thunders in the first place when visually he should be in the neverborn, but I am sure there is a lore reason for that (we didn't get into the lore yet).

...

Now, for my magic friend, as soon as he knows that he can go in tournaments with a full rat theme with hamelin, he will pick him, otherwise he will pick the Dreamer.

For my gunner friend, as soon as he knows that he can go in tournaments without the malosaurus rex with Cooper, he will pick him, otherwise he will pick Dashel 2.

Jacob Lynch used to be in the Neverborn.  On release way back at the tail end of 1.5, 10T was released as a "dual faction" faction, with a back story around infiltrating the other factions.  Lynch was Neverborn, Misaki was Outcast, McCabe was Guild, Mei was Arcanists, and Yan Lo was Ressers (and early in M2E Brewmaster was dual faction with Gremlins).  As the game has developed, TT has gotten more of their own unique identity, and gained Masters that aren't dual faction, and some of the masters that were dual faction lost that- notably Lynch and Misaki becoming exclusively TT.  It is what it is.

One thing to note is that Hamelin is a very difficult master to play in a tournament setting.  Hamelin is good, but it is very difficult to play quickly because you have an unholy trifecta of a lot of conditions to track, a lot of strategic planning (positioning, activation order, control abilities), and a large number of models that are often changing form and replacing with other models.   Add time constraints that are inherent to tournament rounds and you have a recipe for disaster- in my own experience with tournaments, you can play a hoard army or you can play a thinking army, but trying to do both is rough.  

With respect to tournaments, I'd definitely recommend checking out some of the youtube content / tier lists.  The Danger Planet, has been doing a collab with Goonhammer and Badfaux Haku where they rate all of the Masters competitively and talk about why they are placing them there.  Its interesting conversation and worth checking out.  

One thing to note with building "competitive" lists though, is that it can be somewhat of a moving target.  New models get released, new masters get released, errata gets released and nerfs some of the biggest offenders.  Its often better to stick with the faction that draws you in the most, building a competitive crew from there, then start expanding into different masters in that faction.  Puts you in a bit better position to pivot if the meta starts to change, and you can often use some of the same models in both crews (like Guild and the Pale Rider).   So you have someone dangling between Explorers and Guild, and someone dangling between Outcasts and Neverborn.  I would consider trying to pick two masters in the same faction, so if your friend collects both they have a bit more flexibility.   Maybe consider Leveticus or Jack Daw instead of Dreamer?  Maybe consider Perdita instead of Cooper (if he prefers Guild), or Basse instead of Dashel (if he prefers Explorers, Basse is also dual faction guild so he is a good master for someone on the fence between the two factions).