Also, makes sense in the context of the Apocalypse World. Death is all around, and someone who's able to stich people back on their feet would be a very desirable ressource. The Angel being independant in this context means they have the balls and the means to say no to any hardholder or warlord that tells them to work for them.

The playbook actually makes no particular insinuation that the character isn't in the employ, willing or otherwise, of some hardholder or warlord. (Also, dare I say that the doctor is not someone you want to piss off regardless of their Hard, but.)

I'm glad to see it clarified that you can just straight-up seize a person or gang by force, which is how we've been doing it in the campaigns I've been playing in.

Incidentally, dare I ask what it means to pick the "take definite hold" option when straight-up seizing a person or gang? I'm going to guess in practice it's a little more like Arvid's idea of advancing/pushing them back, and that it might give you a situation where you can deny them escape, or deny them the ability to attack another target, or deny them the ability to fight back against the seizing PC (like allowing the PC to go aggro next move), or whatever.

It would mean that ability to go aggro and to seize by force are unrelated, except in the case of going aggro on PCs with whom her Hx is poorer than her Hard. The doc has good Cool (+2), so with Ice Cold, would go aggro at +2, but would not seize by force at +2--she's got steady nerves and the ovaries (OK, balls, whatev) to pull the trigger, but not so much ability to bring down an opponent who is actively fighting back.

But there'd be no point to doing that when I could just spend a couple of improvements to get Hard+2 instead, which is going to happen eventually anyway if the game goes on long enough to start filling out the angel's improvement list.

Also, in our game, we've never had the problem that article describes with seize by force. We use it by consequences, like Christian Griffen there does--if you're getting violent with someone who is immediately prepared to get violent back, or who is already getting violent with you, it's seize by force. As an example, when the doctor was attacked in her surgery by a violent woman over twice her size intent on infecting her with a horrible disease (no, it wasn't AIDS, ffs), the doc pulled her gun and went aggro first, of course--she failed, and then she got pinned and then the fight went right to seizing by force (which the doc somehow managed to succeed at, though I waived inflicting harm because obviously the doc would have her hands full just resisting, forget actually injuring someone that big with her bare hands, and doing that would be a case of using the rules in a way that makes no goddamn sense).

I'm just saying! The medics I know, they'll never point a gun at you, but if they do, you cave and do what they want, or they shoot you.

See, and this is probably where I ended up wandering off. I don't usually make the mental leap from violence to guns--when I picture violence, it's usually something much more muscle-powered. (It's also why I got snippy about the best fighter class being guns-associated, despite the fact that it's the class that needs those FOBGs the least.)

Not really. Starting equipment is just starting equipment (except for things like angel kits, cars, workshops, and maybe FOBGs, but gunluggers of all classes need FOBGs the least, so for them it pales to little more than garnish). It's not like you can't just go buy 2-armour and a shotgun or smg or machete or whatever with a little jingle.

Yeah, but I still haven't figured out what it is that prevents angels from being weaklings, or even means they're stronger than anyone else. I'm still not seeing a relationship between "I heal people" and "I'm good at hurting people." Or, for that matter, "I'm emotionally prepared to follow through on a threat of violence" and "I have any actual strength, skill, or other ability that allows me to physically follow through on a threat of violence."

Perhaps I'm just an oddball, but I've never seen any relationship between what's often referred to as having been "emotionally hardened" and actually being any good at overpowering someone in a violent situation.

In fairness, asking the PCs provocative questions is one of the MC's many jobs. It's not wrong to ask an MC to give a PC something to react to when that PC's in a spot where shit is apparently going so well for them that they don't presently feel the need to make a move and affect their environment. Sometimes, even extraordinary people hit a smooth patch.

In fact, if anything, it's a tool for the MC as much as it is a job for the MC. PC seems to be sitting around twiddling thumbs? Make a move: read them. Ask them what they give a shit about and act on it, ask them what their hopes and dreams are and bait your hook, ask them what'll scare them out of their goddamn complacency and do it.