Why would you need these moves?

No, I don't think you're doing anything wrong, however, there's a distinct difference between planning on dealing with two zombies and then making those two separate rolls... and planning on dealing with one, and then discovering yourself in a position that allows dealing with two. I just felt the spirit of DW lent itself better to the latter and that's the reason I created these rules.

Also, I wanted more grappling.

Hack'n'Slash 10+ result is base damage or base damage+1d6 and an attack from your adversary. Tangled meat is just +1d6, no downside.

These grapple rules aren't designed to be compatible with Hack'n'Slash. Look at the first post in this thread.

Boy, I got really carried away, but as DW completely lacks any grappling rules, I think it will be fun. A lot of messing with modifiers, but I think it models the grip advantages rather well.

TANGLED MEAT:

When you assault or resist in a grapple, roll +Strength.

On a 10+ you get to pick one of these:
- deal massive harm to opponent (+1d6 damage)
- get +1 ongoing for this particular grapple
- grab a weapon from ground or belt, getting +1 next round
- disarm the opponent
- throw the opponent, breaking grapple
- hold the opponent in a pain lock (he can't get free)
- receive harm, but break one of opponent's limbs (not neck)
- the opponent doesn't scream out
- get a strangle hold on opponent and get +1 to next roll; if you can maintain conditional +1 grapple related bonuses for two additonal rounds, he loses consciousness
- if opponent has a compact weapon in hand, direct it towards him and get +1 next round

On a 7-9 you get to pick one of these:
- deal harm while receiving harm
- get +1 to next roll, but receive harm
- avoid harm, getting -1 to next roll
- grab a weapon from ground or belt; GM chooses between dealing harm and giving you -1 next round
- you're disgracefully dragged away from an idle weapon, but can deal harm (I mean, this situation ALWAYS ends with a kick in movies, right?)

On a miss, the GM gets to use 10+ options, but to your disadvantage. All +1 results count as -1.

Wheras, I'd rather let the options be the same across the board, but permit the activation of those through the fiction to differ.

Then it seems our design goals are polar opposite =)

What about something along these lines, combining ranged and close combat?

I guess that's doable, but I much prefer the different methods of fighting feeling different as well. I haven't written up grapple yet, but... let's say in your version, I choose to "take a dominating position" and I'm also deciding that this position is grapple, with my character having a good grip. Now, I'm in a clinch with my opponent, but the outlook of the combat hasn't really changed, and the results of grappling are the exact same as the results of normal fighting.

I'm not sure why the focus is so specific on a single blow against a single target.

Who said that dealing harm is (or should be) handled with a single blow fiction-wise?

I mean, narratively "The captain of the guard and I fence for a few seconds as I drive him back down the stairs." is an extended exchange of blows, but still a single narrative action.

My rules model it just fine. Last two 10+ results achieve it, while making sure the situation doesn't remain static. Your rules don't model it... as on 10+ you also need to damage him or take away his equipment, or discard your 2nd pick. And on 7-9 the GM can either damage you or disarm you in return, or nullify the progress by picking a dominating position for the opponent in return.

And "I swing my claymore in through the tightly packed goblins, cutting through six squalling little bodies with a single blow." would be one blow, many targets.

My rules deal with up to two targets, and that's pretty generous swashbuckling spirit already. Any more of that, and I think suspension of disbelief would suffer... but if that's what you like, go for it =)

Okay, so, in situation #5 the thief succeeds Hack and Slash to damage the ogre, and is assumed along with the same roll, to topple it as if succeeded Defy Danger as well. But what about the previous four situations that zmook asked? =)

1) page 20 has your answer. Unarmed character's do one damage. Weapons don't kill people, but they sure help.

Two questions:
a) What's the mechanic for disarming someone?
b) Does a disarmed FREAKING OGRE deal 1 damage as well?

What is the thief trying to accomplish? How does the thief do it? Does the thief knock the ogre into anything. Anyway, there went be stable combat modifiers because it's always going to be very dependant on the situation. Look at the fictional benefits of the things the players do, anything else will lead from there.

Okay, let's take two distinct situations:
a) Thief wants to knock ogre down, so that the fighter could kill it more easily.
b) Thief wants to knock ogre down, so it falls into some nearby spikes.
How would you handle them?

Yeah, I've always been unsatisfied with sysytems that are like "okay, you're Prone, the following penalties apply..." because they don't always apply. In DW, it's more like ?what are trying to do to the prone target? Okay, because he's prone that sounds easier..." It's muchmore common-sense based on the situation.

Okay, let's take the most straightforward option -- they're trying to kill it. Now, the ogre is down and... killing it "sounds easier" in fiction. How is it reflected in the mechanics?

As an aside, rolling Aid should never be boring.

But it... kind of is. Any tips you use to make it exiting? I mean, no matter the fiction, the result is always the same, right?

Edit: Sorry, if this seems like a thread hijack, but I've been struggling with those very issues and I believe I'm on the same page with OP.