This is awesome!

When you say you looked in the book, do you mean 1st or 2nd edition? Cause my 2nd ed says the same as the playbook (pdf p. 28): high powered is either close/far or +1-harm at far.
3-round burst is just +1-harm.

So if you add high-powered to a pistol, it gains the tag close/far, but if you add it to a rifle, it gains +1-harm.
Did that answer your question?

Vincent, just a minor technical question: the 1-harm blow through (instead of the possible 2-harm) is because of Gremlins armor from Daredevil, yes?

As you said, by the letter the Angel wouldn't be allowed to use sharp for healing touch (or any other character move), but if your group likes the idea, I wouldn't have any qualms about making a small house rule to that effect. I don't think it would ruin anything.

In general: if it makes you happy, you should do it.

You're welcome!
I should add, that I don't usually count harm to gangs and vehicles as cumulative; so a gang suffering 3 harm from two different sources doesn't suffer 6 harm, but rather 3 harm twice (so something like 4 harm which is still really bad!).

Also I agree completely with Ebok with regards to fiction first. If all a gang has is specifically small arms, they won't be able to touch a tank for example.

Let us know how your test goes!

Ebok, no one is disputing your right to play the game the way you want to - if you like hard moves on misses, more power to you. It obviously doesn't break anything.

However it does seem clear from the text that in 2nd the only hard part of missing a sbf is suffering harm and only getting to choose 1 option, see the example about Marie on page 168-169.
And regarding Munins argument, that the book tells us to make hard moves on all misses, well that simply doesn't seem to be the case.
First of, the book directs the MC to make as hard and direct a move as she likes on a miss. And while I agree that artful and gracious is an exception in that it states explicitly that nothing bad happens, it really isn't an exception with regards to ignoring the clause telling the MC to make as hard and direct a move as she likes on a miss, because many moves don't allow the MC that option on a miss. We already looked at in-brain puppet strings which specifies the outcome on a miss. It has been argued - and I agree - that 1 harm (ap) is indeed pretty hard, but it is not as hard and direct as the MC likes. As has already been shown, some character moves do require the MC to make as hard and direct move as she likes, but they are pretty explicit about it.

So the conclusion seems to be that in 2nd ed every move explicitly tells us what happens on the different outcomes, and because of that we have to assume that unless the move tells the MC to make a hard move, she shouldn't.

Whether or not this is the best way to play is a whole other question. As I've already said, my group has not had any problems with the new rules - violence is now a more attractive option and we like that.
Of course that doesn't mean that Marie can just seize her way out of all problems! Moves still snowball, and if she chose to escape, she didn't choose to terrify, impress or dismay, and so it might be reasonable (depending on context) to assume that the raider's friends chase her calling for Marie to escape a hunter.

On the other hand Ebok does have persuasive arguments, and I'll have to try out his hack some day.

I don't think a missed Leadership would be of much immediate consequence, but I do agree that having gangs without a strong present leader is a risky proposition