Three sneak attacks in a row is a bit much. Also, I don't think you need the detailed description of actions. I would make it: spend 1 hold to remain concealed when you take an action, spend all remaining hold to make a sneak attack.

I have questions! Mainly about two things: sway and stress.

How has your group reacted to having sway (instead of Hx or Bonds)? How do they tend to use it? Is getting sway an important thing for the players, do they try and hold it over others? Are they more inclinded to go for a fast convince or manipulate instead? What did players think of the questions + statements used to generate sway in chargen? (I think these are cool)

What does stress look like in the fiction? Do PCs take stress a lot? How often do players choose reactions? What kinds of situations have PCs gotten into when trying to de-stress?

And just in general terms, I'm curious as to what role these two things have played in your game. I'm also looking forward to a new version!

Whoah, memories...

Why not use one move for convincing/manipulating but use one stat for when you are telling the truth, and another stat for when you are lying? I dunno what all your basic moves are, but I might combine Passion and Fury, so there's just Honour, Composure, Passion, and Insight. Use passion to seduce, convince, command, or inspire when you are telling the truth. Use insight to do the same when you are lying.

Sounds like zefir handled it perfectly.

Probably guy vs. gang, unless they are attacking just one guy and only that one guy is fighting back.

Like, if Cypress (PC) runs into The Jackals and they unload on each other, full auto, that's guy vs gang. If Cypress specifically targets only Richmond, it's still guy vs. gang if all the Jackals are firing back (but you should apply the consequences of Cypress' harm on the gang to Richmond first, because that follows from the fiction and is you being a fan). If they're not all fighting back, Cypress is probably going aggro, unless for some reason the Jackals are letting Richmond take on Cypress alone. Maybe this is the case, while the rest of the gang fights Chewy (another PC). If so, Cypress vs. Richmond is guy vs. guy, and Chewy vs. the Jackals is guy vs. gang.

If Cypress and Chewy wade right into the ranks of the Jackals waving machetes, have them both roll seize by force, guy vs. gang. However! If the gang is a medium-sized gang, and Cypress and Chewy have a good attack plan that splits the gang in two, have them each fight against a small gang, as a reward for good tactics.

Fucking Thieves is the main thing that makes the Chopper different from the other playbooks. Unless another PC with a gang takes that move, that's the Chopper's thing. If you want your Chopper to be unique, you need to lean on the things that set him or her apart. Use Fucking Thieves all the time, it's like free shit. If somebody highlights your hard, you should be throwing items around left and right. Also remember that even if you failed, somebody stole it, so now you have a reason to track down a thief. Go rough some people up, you're a bike gang.

Another point of difference is that the Chopper's gang isn't tied down to a holding, the way the Hardholder's is. There is no necessity for them to feel loyalty to anything other than their gang and the Chopper. You can use that to your advantage when you describe what your gang is like. Make it different from the hardholder's. Don't let the MC throw the same problems at both of you.

If your NPC wants to knock out the Gunlugger from behind, how you can present this situation depends on what has already happened.

If the PC has missed a roll, you can describe them getting knocked out, and that's that.

If they haven't, then you describe the NPC coming up behind the gunlugger with a bottle and ask the gunlugger: "What do you do?"

If they ignore this situation, you can describe the NPC knocking them out, exactly as if they had missed a roll.

But you can't just knock out the gunlugger from nowhere, and describing the gang standing around isn't enough of a warning to follow through with a hard move like that. "You get knocked out, that's it" is a hard move irrevocable, unalterable. "You're about to be knocked out, what are you going to do about it?" is a soft move, one you can make whenever you want, because you're giving the player the chance to react. This is basically what makes AW "fair" when there's no rolls for the GM to make on behalf of ambushing NPCs. It can also be hard to shift over to this frame of mind if you are used to other rpgs where things work more like wargames, are turn-based, and every character gets a roll to do things. Or to resist things! Because at the same time, the gunlugger doesn't get a roll unless the character actually does something. If you give the PC the soft move warning, probably they aren't going to actually read a sitch in that moment (since you have already answered that one question they want the answer to), but if they do stand around checking things out, follow through with the move and knock them out.

Ah, yeah, I can see your thought process a lot better now.

I suppose with choosing a threat impulse in particular, "insane" might not actually be such a bad choice to have on the list. Or even "flawed," although that might depend on how well the rest of the material/playbook/expansion puts the players in the right mindset.

Usually, I think of +1s that don't influence behaviour towards the game's agenda as being rather useless (in game-design terms), but I can see how it would make the Vatlord player feel superior to their creations, thus posing the question "if you are so superior to these people, how do you treat them?" Hm. I'd be interested to see how it worked in actual play, anyway, but yeah, that could work.