Can someone please explain the malacuso?

Thank you! :), dear Ebok

After repeatedly examined the Macaluso playbook, I agree more with your post them with my own (even as MC I LIKE POWERGAMING - it is natural to get the most possible, not?;) At least, it is good test for rules balance...).

The Macaluso is ONE mind, just in more bodies (as human is one body with more parts, although not independent). The rules also are for SHARING any move, nor having any move more times - not even because of more bodies. "When you act, you act as one of your secret society, in that one’s body." So it should mean:

1) More targets is OK (more bodies for targeting) and even the Brainer (for example) can target more people one by one quickly (it is BRAIN move, so speed up:)). But still a) ONE move shared through more bodies to more targets (and also sharing holds). b) ONE move even to one target and even in presence of more bodies. If the Macaluso want to repeat that move quickly (see aboove) it can be done from another body (for the first brain to rest;)). If stil used the same brain in the max. speed (seee above), then "Acting underr fire" (not rested brain of just NPC body).
2) One body with NTBFW as small gang YES (rules say so), also harm as small gang (as the Gunlugger), so as I posted before, this is for not to be fragile in a battle. BUT: No leadership (if not having the move), stats according the body (so not as strong as gunlugger if not appropriate badass body - see the 1st body of the Macaluso) and also apropriate armor and weapons needed. NTBFW Gunlugger is realitically imageable as a guy with big gun in each hand and some backup guns (and grenades etc.) goig into a battle "armed to the teeth" and in armor. So the Macaluso have to meet that conditions for be able to do that move ("to do it, do it").
3) Joining gangs in rules is 1 + 1 = 2 (see the Chopper: 15 small gang, 30 medium gang; and see the Hardholder 60 large gang). So 4 bodies of the Macaluso could be large gang if going literally by the rules. BUT: I understand that the ONE mind is power at one hand (communication, shared views etc.), but also a problem at other hand (ONLY SHARED MOVEs and so on). Therefore the "golden middle way" could be: 1 body with NTBFW is just NPC harm taking (!), but small gang - appropriate weapons for harm dealing and armor for self defending. If another body elsewhere is doing any harder task(s), then acting under fire (engaged in the battle mentally with the 1 body). MORE bodies in the battle JOINING INTO LARGER GANG (but STILL NPC HARM TAKING etc.) OR (which I see more realistic after your post) STILL SMALL GANG, but if ALL BODIESS or more than 1 and no body engaged in any other task if somewhere else is included, then the GANG HARM TAKING (and no more problem with mentally engaged elsewhere).
     I like the idea of  the Macaluso going into the battle WITH at least 1 BODY HIDDEN (even better if secured also) somewhere (else). What is your opinion about that, dear Ebok?
4) Time for new body = YES, rules say "create" (according circumstances), so some time to do it souds as needed. Also in each body there are (new) independent relationships! That means 1) From *birth* (or what the MAELSTROM ENTITY understand as beginning of life;)) being split into 3 - 4 boodies among appropriate community (with at least other PC knowing all bodies living yet) - see *called your “secret society” (misnomer though it is)*. 2) If the Macaluso got new body, the community would know about it sooner or later (sooner I think;)).
5) MOOTIVATIONS could be enough even just with that, not? See above (at least point 4).

What about change the playboook? (no point - still unanswered).

Indeed, I think Ebok is right - sharing is the key term.  Not duplicating.  I was getting carried away when considering NTBFW.  ;)

Just to be clear, though, even with NTBFW, you don't receive Harm like a gang.  It doesn't make sense - the Gunlugger (for instance) is only a single individual.  In the case of a Macaluso where you elect to have one of your Selves act in a manner NTBFW, that Self still tracks Harm as an individual NPC (meaning 2-Harm will probably kill it), not as a gang.  If you have multiple Selves working together then maybe you might be able to aggregate the Harm you've taken, but it doesn't make you any less fragile.  Gangs (as typically NPC groups) are pretty solidly in the crosshairs, and 2-Harm to a gang will include "many injuries, some fatalities," which means you might lose more than one Self in one go if you aggregate the Harm you receive in this way.

I suggested taking harm as a gang when all the bodies are present, simply because if you had three or four npcs fighting side by side in the street in a battle... You could put them into a single gang to better track harm across them. Rather then saying, a grenade explodes, all of them take 4 harm, all of them are dead. It's a more cool narrative event if some died, some were injured and some managed to get out of the street. i.e. The gang took 4 harm.

Since it is acceptable to do with when tracking npc harm. It is reasonable, that the macaluso would also be able to track harm in this way. Since they track harm for their society as if they were all npcs. A collective of npcs is a gang. This depends on the MC's style to determine which is preferred, individually tracking each body through the fight, or letting the math be handled in a collective sense. Either way of doing this isn't, strictly speaking, wrong.

I would only allow that to occur is all of the collective was present. If they had the +1 body, I'd expect all four to be there. They're still more fragile then PCs, but collectively and all at once it seems fair they'd be at least as capable.

Much thanks for all answers!:)

As I posed before I agree with Ebok and now also with Munin - in my first post I was too ecstatic becouse I got LE book just few days before...

After more study including answers above I think, that now just the question of CHANGE THE PLAYBOOK is unclear - at least to me.

On the other hand, also the Skinner's move "Hypnotic" should be somehow more powerfull when SHARED by more Macaluso bodies, not? ;)

My personal interpretation of the Macaluso stems from one sentence in the Secret Society description:

"For all practical purposes you, your MC, and your fellow players can treat your secret society all as full and separate characters, with these exceptions:"

So whereas some might interpret them as a hive mind, I interpret them as a shared entity with multiple bodies and personalities. This means they all act independently of one another, rather than as some singular entity... even if they are, technically, a singular entity. So for example, one of my members is in love with another PC, while the others could care less despite knowing the same things that member does.

As for NTBFW, we decided at our table that the ability is superceded by the presence of an actual gang, not stacked with. So a small gang of Macaluso members is just a small gang, even if they are a small gang individually. NTBFW to me is a loner's move, making the character a one-man army. You can't have an army of one-men armies... they are separate armies.

After more study including answers above I think, that now just the question of CHANGE THE PLAYBOOK is unclear - at least to me.

If I was ruling on it, I would say the change the playbook ability changes your class for the entire society. You keep the whole hive mind concept, but gain a new member with stats and such based on your new playbook (one +2 stat for the playbooks primary attribute, a -1 for its worst). Once you get that covered, and how it affects your attributes, everything else should work the same. New moves as per the playbook, new equipment for that specific member, et cetera.

On the other hand, also the Skinner's move "Hypnotic" should be somehow more powerfull when SHARED by more Macaluso bodies, not? ;)

I wouldn't do that. Hypnotic requires time and solitude with someone, and you aren't getting that with a crowd of people in the same room, are you? How do you become fixated on a group all fighting for your attention?