In my experience, there's a die-by-the-sword tendency for Gunluggers.

In a game I ran over the winter, our Gunlugger, Rue, progressed steadily for a while. I think it was when Rue got attacked on foot by a dozen bikers and won that he finally lost all caution about using violence.
A siege, one melee, and two shoot-outs later, Rue finally pissed off the tenant farmers badly enough that about fifty of them picked up rocks and pelted Rue until he collapsed. He had 2-armor, but a miss on a 0-harm roll is still bad, and when he hit the ground, someone took his gun away and shot him.
I think it's no accident that Rue's home was inside a drainage pipe (which was chosen by Rue himself) - social interactions are dangerous, but too many interactions that end in violence is pretty bad too, so it's better if the Gunlugger can get away from it all once in a while before s/he ends up burning down the town.

Just played a pretty recent version with Jason Morningstar and some other folks at Camp Nerdly.
Physical challenges were understood to be most any dangerous, possibly competitive, activity, be it a footrace, a swimming contest, or a holmgang-duel. In our one-shot session last night, the physical challenges were all combat.

But the choices under accept a physical challenge are all pretty vague, which is awesome:
- better/faster/stronger when it counts
- you don't tempt fate
- your feat is admirable; somebody notices
- your feat is memorable; take +1 forward against them

This is an incredibly flexible move. I had been under the impression that "physical challenge" meant combat, 1:1, but this move here could be suitable for a lot of different activities, kind of like contests in Agon. The point is that someone comes out on top, and there's a larger social context to your actions. That's pretty cool.

Anyway, I go on too much. It was a solid session, and I'm impressed.

Yes! I was wondering what happened to "turn their move back on them". I've been doing it regardless; it's one of the real highlights of AW (no pun intended) and it's really helped me engage the players (while taking the pressure off myself! ^__^)

Re: "put them in a spot" - I also need to watch out for the equivalent of taking 10 or taking 20 - - when a player describes being really meticulous, obviously that's gonna cost them more time - it just follows in the fiction, ya know?

I think Defend needs to have Con connected to it. It's about heart - about courage and steadfastness. But even just looking at it mechanically, Defend still works for a ranged attacker: you can choose whichever option you want, so you'll pick one that makes fictional sense in that moment.

As for the zombie example, I would just design a "zombie horde" that had low armor but high HP, so it'd take a while to get through them all but everyone could make some progress against them. If the players tried to bullrush through, I'd say that's Defying Danger+strength, yeah.

^^ I like that it clearly makes sense for the heroes to kind of hole up individually, wherever they can find a bit of cover.
I like that a weak hit means a future encounter, but you still get to heal up. It preserves the "integrity" of getting a hit.

Yeah, I totally misinterpreted that. Ha!

I suppose you could establish a local "tolerance" for the DM revoking a spell on a 6 or less. It could potentially feel like a usurpation of the player's authority (since it's by default something a player can choose to do) but because that 7-9 option puts it "out there" as a possibility, it could be something the DM could do as a hard move.

In my opinion, the more characters you have means that you can go into more dangerous areas and, because of your numbers, be able to synergize to keep up your HP and so forth.

That just kind of fits the fiction to me - - people can sleep more soundly and digest properly and all those other comfort-things when someone else is around to watch their back. It fits with my digestion of adventure stories and how characters in that genre keep it together.

In a spy-film or heist-flick hack for DW, Make Camp would be something like:
Pit Stop:
When the lot of you go out for a drink or a bite to eat, consume one Smoke [thanks, Regiment!] to recover HP equal to half your max. If you turn down a cig or don't have one, you ain't feelin' too good - heal nothing and take -1forward.
Roll +eyeballs - - on a hit you may choose one for the "party" as a whole:
- you're not in enemy territory
- the food is actually pretty good; you don't have to dull your taste buds with a smoke first to stomach it.
- no one seems to remember you after you leave, if anyone should come inquiring about you.

My point is that adventure fiction is very often about the characters eating, drinking, or otherwise engaging in (literally) sensual activity together - playing music or partying, even.
Mechanically, socializing as a group is emphasized, and playing with fewer players is discouraged because it kind of collapses the whole Bond system, which if used can do a lot of the creative groundwork for the party dynamic, and even the world the game takes place in.

Then, when you get back to town, you can mark your return with a Carouse roll.

Jeremy, I figure if I didn't want to really screw the players over on account of that 3 you mentioned, you could just opt to make a softer move instead, like revealing something bad about a hireling or announcing future badness (maybe the first distant rumblings of the Balrog, deep below?) to show the players that even at rest they can't really relax here.

It revolves around the phrase "dangerous territory" - - just like in good old Unknown Armies, if there's no threat or challenge in the way, then don't put one there. Make Camp seems to be "say yes or roll the dice" personified, as the players look to the DM to judge whether they're in a dangerous spot or if they can just have a reprieve for a bit.