So what happens when your bed explodes after you killed someone that someone else loved?

Or take a sniper's shot to the head because you were just shooting folks instead of reading the sitch or making friends?

What happens when, the next time you go to pillage the "farmers in the next valley" and find that they've given up on this locale and moved on and your little tin cup is empty?

When you're not giving the curing of the local disease any effort and everyone dies, what do you have left?  Just move on?

Why wouldn't there be any ramifications to the PCs' antisocial behavior?  Make Apocalypse World seem real.

I'm having trouble articulating this, but I'm going to try.  I think that coming up with ways to make it mechanically harder is probably hiding an ailment with a band-aid.  And I'm trying to see through to what's wrong.  I have MCd for players with retirement level characters and didn't have this problem.

Do they act like a party?  Divide them.  And I mostly mean socially; with PC-NPC-PC triangles.

How many +3 stats do they each have?  Are they all good at finding eats, hiding from snipers and protecting their minds from the witches that live in the murk-marsh?

What kinds of goals are they pursuing?

Do they care about people or things?  When you threaten them through stuff they care about, it's not too hard to make things feel gritty and risky.

How long are your sessions and how many advances happen per?  Was the world apocalyptic at first but now they're pretty much cleaning things up?  Is it possible that the campaign should draw to a close and make room for the next one?

Depends on why you'd get the +1 against her and how you try to pass that along to Duke.  If it makes sense in the fiction, Duke gets the +1 also.  At least in my game.

Last Saturday in World of Dungeons, my kids, playing two PCs, encountered two large spiders.  The spiders have 1HD and do 2 points of damage.  The spiders didn't even attack at the same time.  My son's thief had only 2 HP, but a point of armor.  He was taken to 0 HP by the second spider, but my daughter's wizard made a roll to save him with bandages.  The way I set that up (with nearly no advice from the WoD rules) seemed like just the right amount of lethality.

I see what you changed between the two versions but not why.

As I read those, a version of the move that's sort of between the two came to mind:

Squadron Commander: When your squad fights for you, roll +hard. On a 10+, hold 3. On a 7-9 hold 1. Spend your hold 1 for 1 to:
•Draw fire.
•Concentrate fire on a target.
•Sacrifice themselves to buy time for the fleet.
•Lay in wait to ambush.
Any time during the fight, you can choose to take 1 extra hold and the MC will tell you how they they buck your command, push themselves too far, or get careless.

But if that shares whatever the problem with your first version is, then that's still a problem.

Your AW gang is a bunch of named NPCs with their own not-that-complicated agendas.  They're threats in fronts.  They might be trying to kill you and they might also be the only thing keeping you alive.  

the best you can manage is to influence individual members via the basic moves.

At least sometimes, you can influence them as a group with the basic moves.  You can straight-up go aggro on a gang, right?  And I'm pretty sure that Vx has talked about manipulating groups of people.

So... what I take from that, is that "using a gang as a weapon" second of the book is dependent first and foremost on your gang's willingness either because:

a) you hit on a move like Leadership or Pack Alpha
b) it's in their own self interest (not a move)
c) you've done enough work in the narrative (via other moves) that the MC believes it is now b) in their own self interest.

Yes?

I'm not parsing "second of the book" but I want to point out that no matter what you do to motivate your gang, it always boils down to convincing them it's in their best interest.  If you hit the leadership roll, then they think you (we!) can win or at least they think that personal loyalty keeps things going.  And acting as pack alpha, you're convincing them that doing what you tell them to is smarter than getting their shit kicked sideways.  You can even be whip a mob (wouldn't your gang often count as a mob?) into a frenzy and have them fight for you because, at least temporarily, you've talked them into seeing things your way.  And if you don't use any of those moves, they'll still fight for you if they think it's the smartest course.

That's how I see all that.

As to BSG and your CAG move, it occurs to me that something pretty important in the show is how one of the pilots (usually Starbuck) will disobey Lee, but through amazing skill, luck, pluck, etc. get the job done -- maybe even better than anticipated.  Is that an interesting failure or partial success condition?

I like stat-substitution moves.  But I'd never apply them more broadly than they're written.  If it merits a custom move, that's because it's different enough from acting under fire to be something different and distinct.

With regard to providing cover fire, I guess that's an aspect of fighting that isn't helped by being insano or battle-hardened.  You're too twitchy maybe and anyway, why do those fuckers need cover-fire -- can't they just grow a pair?

I'd answer all of those based on the fictional situation.  I think if someone with NTBFW joins a small gang, it would often become a medium gang.  If the gang is supporting the NTBFW character, then maybe they get her damage but because they present a much broader profile, everyone gets their armor.  Unless, y'know, something else makes more sense.