Thanks Ebok.

The train as a hardhold is an excellent idea I'd not considered. I reread the 2ed preview during my lunch break, and it really looks like it fits way more than a driver vehicle. Paticularly when it comes to the new vehicle battle moves and stuff like shunting, spinning out of control and the like don't really apply to trains, or at least applying them massivly changes the stakes to the point where it's not going to work as a regular thing.

I was originally thinking of making him take the "collector" move and limiting him to 3 carriages. He was talking about setting up a makeshift gun emplacement on the roof, and "my other car is a tank" could cover this. But I'd probably need to throw him a freebee light bike or dune buggy just to make the character work. It was to be a small train, just the one engine and a 2-3 cars. But even then, there are the problems you highlighted like the state of the track and having it be unique (how) vs all the problems of multiple trains on the same track with no central control system. One idea I had comes from out last game - Blades in the Dark - where life outside settlements is totally untenable and nearly all transport takes place on specially protected trains. If you're lucky to survive 5 min in the wilderness, it would explain why no one's blown up tracks (yet). I could borrow bits to make a maelstrom, or just whole sale take the world we had and fast forward a couple hundred years. Nothing about AW says it needs to be Earth. I like the nodes idea too. There's no reason not to do that. I think the player just likes the idea of a mobile base, so a road train truck might work too, of not quite as cool.

I'll talk to the player. He's quite inexperienced in roleplaying games. Most of the group except myself and the regular GM are too, which is why I was planning on doing a little more setup than is usual for an AW game, and just giving them them things rather than asking. To be honest, from playing with him, I kinda expected him to be all over the hardholder rather than driver. The rest of the players are still undecided on characters. There's a good chance he'll like the idea.

If he really wants to play a driver, what could work is another player plays the hardholder, and "owns" the train. The driver just drives it. It'll be a bit bigger as a hold (I looked up Snowpiercer - how have I never heard of that? - although not that big). But big enough that there could be a car or 2 that houses buggies as the driver and the hard holder's regular vehicles that can offload and sortie off for raiding and supply gathering. So he gets to drive a train, just not own it, and do regular driving things as well. Maybe enforce taking the smaller hold option and change a want to fuel. If no one wants to be hardholder, an npc one will do and give us a bit more freedom in designing it anyway.

I'll have to see how it goes on Thursday. If it's a train-wreck (hurr), our regular DM has a Dungeon-world game as back up. But I love modernish settings more than classic fantasy, so I'm hoping they like it! You've given me a lot of ideas. I'm less apprehensive and more excited again now.

Announce future badness
Maybe drop some hints that something might be off. Is this is the modus operandi of the bandits? Pepper your description of the journey and the road with some burned out husks of previous victims. An npc along for the ride who's a little twitchy, maybe they've heard rumors, maybe they're an insider, maybe they have a deathwish/axe to grind with the bandits and are hoping to run into them, whatever fits being a fan of your players most.

Result of a hard move
It's well within reason to trigger the trap on a hard move. Doesn't have to be related to the roll. You can try bait this out by giving them things to do with rolls during the "safe bit" at the start as you establish a nice atmosphere. Maybe there's a convoy vehicle that could use the savvy head's touch. Maybe there's an npc dispute for the touchstone. Angel patients, that sort of thing. They'll be too busy doing what they do best to suspect. Until an unlucky roll happens...

Inflict harm (as established).
Just trigger the trap. If the scene is dragging and no one has done anything to detect it, or rolled <7. Really remember to be a fan of the players with this one.

Seems like a fine way to run it. Nice and cinematic.

I think you were find for the grapple. If it had of been a 10+ I'd understand, but it's much more interesting the way you played it. The character is still awesome, just going against a particularly trying foe.

The read a sitch does seem unduly harsh though. I think it's fine for a player to do that, especially if they are more a thinking fighter than an all out brawler. Breaking the grapple would have been the perfect break to quickly scan for weaknesses. The move was way too harsh. If you wanted to stick with the spinning blade, he got a partial success, at the very least, he should have gotten 1 forward to acting under fire and dodging.

Thinking of how a situation would have been played out in a movie. I could see the hero getting into a grapple with the villain, choking him a bit before getting thrown off. I couldn't see them getting suckered with a blade like that out of nowhere.

Generally for something like that, a brutal fight with a brutal opponent, you want the pcs to come out victorious, but quite a bit bruised and bloodied. Like winning a tough race. Exhausted, battered, but high on adrenaline and feeling like a total badass.

I'm going to both agree, and disagree with what Ebok says. The vast majority of the time, you don't want duplicate playbooks, so if you want a simple answer, it's no. It's not the ideal situation. It's can lead to boredom and the points about it all becoming about kill shit and a whole lot of "doing exactly the same, but with a better roll" are spot on.

But, in special circumstances, it can be worked with. You can take characters in different directions, like the gunslinger who wants to look out for the little guy vs the heartless profiteer. Maybe a brainer who supplements her weird powers with being able to handle a gun or a vehicle compared to one who talks his way out when the maelstrom isn't cooperating. The starting stats, and choosing moves from playbooks option on level up will help set each player apart.

I'd only do it if the situation really called for it and it threatened the group though. The whole party wanting to be a heavily armed gun totting gang is better served with a gunslinger, a battle babe, and any other with a heavy tilt towards shooting things up (best +cool and hard stat option, sawn-off as handy weapon, barter for better gear as soon and as frequent as possible). There's no reason a savvy head can't shop around for an assault rifle or a hocus acquire a car. Consider custom moves, but be careful with balance.

Some playbooks duplicate better than others. Savvy head is probably the worst, but even then you could probably spice things up by giving them projects that require teamwork. Conversely, your example of hardholder would be one I think would work best. Two or more hardholders vying for control over a single large hold, each with their own fluctuating hold over the people can be an interesting set up for a game of thrones style politics, combat light game. I'd still think hocus and choppers would be better, but if they don't appeal to any of the players, why not multiple hardholders? There's so much to work with for pc-npc-pc triangles as you struggle to convince people that you're they should be loyal to. Do you go the fear route, or spend precious resources keeping them happy? Or up the scale and everyone has their own settlement, joined against a larger threat. How do you deal with an underling getting caught stealing from an ally? Make an example and piss off your own people, or show mercy and lose an important trade route?

Ultimately, the best solution is talking the the group openly and honestly to find out what everyone wants (yourself included) from the game.