I assume the difference between a rank 6 farmer and a rank 7 farmer is that a rank 6 farmer pays rent or corvee labor (or is squatting), but is free to leave, while a rank 7 farmer is bound to the land, and gets only what the landlord gives him. I've seen the word peasant used for both of those statuses, though, and I probably would leave it out of the description of rank 7. I think serf gets the idea across better.

Rank also isn't necessarilly uncontested. A change from 2nd to 1st means that you're crowned king. It doesn't mean that there are no other claimants to the throne. Maybe you crowned yourself.

I'll take a shot at how I would handle these. This is, of course, based on my own rules interpretation, so may be wrong. In all cases, I'm going to assume that Rossyl does not have any weapon but the bow.

a) He is pulling his bow at some men-at-arms (with only melee weapons) charging at him from 50 yards, across the bridge. They are but seconds away. How many arrows will land true before they arrive?

Hold Steady to do anything when being charged at by men-at-arms. (a miss doesn't mean you run, it just means you flinch, and the MC can have that mean something worse). After that, Go Into Battle, Rossyl does 4-harm, men-at-arms do 0. If they make it to Rossyl, another Go Into Battle, Rossyl does maybe 1 harm for his fists, men-at-arms do 4 with their swords.

b) He is pulling his bow at some men-at-arms trying to kill him, but they are crossing a ford from the other side, that will probably take a few minutes from them to cross to this side.

Go Into Battle, Rossyl does 4-harm, men-at-arms do 0. If they make it to Rossyl, another Go Into Battle, Rossyl 1, men-at-arms 4.

c) He is pulling his bow at a some men-at-arms coming to arrest him, but our hero can shoot safely from a tall tower window, which iron locked door is not readily accessible  to his foes. They have a choice to try to force the entrance, which can take a long time, or run to the forest cover, which is half a mile away. It was a trap!

I would just have him do his harm. In AW, I might have him Go Aggro. Vincent says this is Go Into Battle, so probably Go Into Battle, Rossyll 4, men-at-arms 0.

If the men-at-arms were unaware of Rosyll, I would definitely have him just do harm. Murder isn't battle.

d) he is pulling his bow against a few men-at-arms which are already engaging him in melee. Our friend's Rossyll´s Fate isn't looking all that bright. I hope he still have more to do before he dies. 

In my game, he wouldn't be able to use a bow like that, so Go Into Battle, Rossyl 1, Men-at-Arms 4 . In a game inspired by Legolas in the Lord of the Rings movies, Rossyl 4, Men-at-Arms 4.

In all of these, subtract armor from harm.

Man, I totally read the description of the three laws as straight up, "Gender definitely matters. Make sure your game addresses gender, if it's at all interesting to you."

I agree that I'd like more focus on gender, though. What I'd particularly is a playbook or two for someone of the second sex, male for the Old Law, or female for the Law of Eagles or the New Law. I'm hoping the Summer-Crowned fits that.

I think that gender being a Look would not work in this game. In AW, what it means that gender is a Look, is that by default it's about presentation, and by default doesn't matter in the post apocalypse world. In this game, it definitely does matter. It's important for all three of the Laws. Gender is about social role, not look, and about conflicting social roles.

To back-seat game design, what I would do is make it a choice, on each playbook, as part of Rank, right next to choosing your genealogy.

But without sex moves, how can this game properly reflect shows like The Sexy Dark Ages? ;)

Watched the thing. Yeah, that's exactly the kind of scene I'm thinking of.

I recently played in an Apocalypse World game with an MC+two players. About halfway through the series, we both made new PCs. They ended up being on more or less opposite sides from the original PCs. The game ended up with a giant showdown between my "good" PC and my fellow player's "evil" PC, and between my fellow player's "crazy vengeful" PC and my "evil" PC. It was great. So I guess what I'm saying is that your new PC doesn't have to support your old PC.

My AW groups have had a rule that when you make a second PC they can't interact directly with your first PC, or have Hx or other explicit relationships with your first PC. I'm not sure if we got that from the text, or made it up ourselves. It seems like that could make it work in this game?