Well, as far as benefits to the Chopper themselves... Dominic, the Chopper in my last game, had a rich gang that had claimed a ruined city that was still actively scavenged as their territory.  I periodically allowed 'squeeze the scavs in the ruins' as a gig for him with minimal risk, rather than having to go out and do something excessively exciting to get jingle.  Sometimes, a relatively safe and reliable way to earn some jingle that has no risk of losing some of your people is really worth quite a bit.

'Most hardholds are not functional producers of wealth.  It's the apocalypse, after all.'  This was actually what gelled things in my mind to settle on allowing a person with a small holding to at least extract enough surplus for a 1-barter lifestyle by default, because my assumptions for the apocalypse I'm running are actually quite different.  Agriculture continues and there's a trade network up and down the River that binds together a widely-spread civilisation of tiny settlements.  Things are rough and poor by pre-End standards, but my apocalypse actually has no danger of humanity going extinct, and in fact is in the slow process of rebuilding larger alliances and kingdoms in the shattered aftermath of the old world.  Previous high technology is slowly breaking down with no replacement, but new cotton cloth, iron stoves for new dwellings that have been manufactured up-River, new gas refined by the oil barons out west, and new crops every year have been seen in the setting.  Humanity at the very least is surviving, whatever the brutality of many people.

When a character gains a small holding as an advance and the Wealth move, would you rule that they also gain the Hardholder feature that the holding covers their day to day living expenses?  That feature isn't mentioned as part of the Wealth move, but it might logically follow as a perk of even the smallest holdings that don't produce any actual barter as surplus.  What do people think?

I've noticed there's inconsistency through the rules about the tags that SMGs and MGs currently have.  In the playbooks, they're listed as 'area', but on page 230-231, they're listed as 'autofire'.  Might be worthwhile to render those consistent.  The SMG is also listed as a 'SMF' on page 230.  Also worth noting that there's inconsistency between the wants created by a holding having a bustling market; the new playbook lists it as 'strangers' while the material on page 252 still lists it as 'idle' as per 1E, as does the example of holding creation.

Jonatan- out of curiousity, what has happened the last two times with your more-grounded maelstrom?  I'd be interested to see what solutions came up for people seeking a more grounded experience.

Thanks for the explanation, Vincent; it makes more sense to me now.

lumpley: That statline is the only one where a -2 is counted as equivalent to a +2.  If you're going with that, then the Battlebabe's third statline, the Brainer's third statline, every Gunlugger statline but the first, and the Hardholder's second statline need fixing for consistency.

Is there a particular reason that the Gunlugger only starts with two moves, now?  I recall discussion of balance in 1E, where the Battlebabe got +3 Cool because they functionally spent a move option on +1 Cool.  With the improved Ice Cold, the Battlebabe's +3 Cool, and the reduced number of moves a Gunlugger starts with, the Gunlugger's position as the baddest ass, as they're supposed to be, seems a bit more precarious, or possibly obsoleted.