Combat issue during play.

So I hate to rehash a subject that seems to have been fairly well covered in the past, but I am still having a little bit of trouble with one issue during play.  What I am talking about is "combat" and what moves should comprise the bulk of it.  In the text, Vincent says of Go Aggro: Going aggro means using violence or the threat of violence to
control somebody else’s behavior, without (or before) fighting.  Which seems to preclude it's use during a fight that is ongoing, or least it's use against someone in the fight who is actively engaged already.

However it has been noted often on these boards that Seize by Force needs to actively be taking something, and that "victory" or "he life" don't quite cut it.  With that being the case let me present an example from play in our first session.

Bob the Gunlugger has spotted a fellow in the junkyard trying to hot-wire an old truck.  This interloper has also seen bob, and has a hunting rifle trained on him.  So Bob pulls his 9mm and is all "Drop the rifle son or I'll drop you"  The interloper sucks it up, and they trade some shots.    Bob wants to run to some cover, and the MC  says your doing it under fire, Bob blows the roll and gets shot to shit.  He decides screw it, this guy has the bigger gun and I want it.  So he charges the guy, slides over the roof of the truck, kicks the fellow in the face and wrests the rifle away from him.

Now the guy pulls his own pistol and the play at the table breaks down.  They are in a fight so Go Aggro seems out as pointed out in the text.  There is nothing to Seize, so what is the move?  We settled, as I think a lot of groups have done, for seize the guy's life.  

Thinking about it after the game, and after much reading here, I have come up with a couple of thoughts.  

1: Bob is simply acting under fire at this point, and the two trade harm.
2: No move is made, and the MC either chooses Trade harm as established, or deal harm, or something else entirely.
3: Go aggro is simply more versatile than we have given it credit for?

What do you guys think?  The issue kinda hovered around in play for the whole night, and was the only thing that kept the session from really flowing seemlessly.

Seize the guy himself. "Take definite hold" could mean grappling or pinning him, or you could simply choose options like doing more harm and taking less harm to straight-up duke it out.

"Now the guy pulls his own pistol and the play at the table breaks down."

Interestingly, this is where your description of the fiction breaks down. The interloper pulls a pistol, his face is half bashed in, he's been shot several times with 9mm rounds, but he's inside Bob's guard! Bob can't get the hunting rifle pointed at him, and the interloper is trying to press the gun right up against the open armpit of Bob's armour and blow his chest out.

What does Bob do in response? You can't tell what move it is if you don't have a really clear idea of what Bob is doing.

Aha, So Bob acts, gets his successful sieze, and we all look at the MC. This is the MC's chance to put bob in a spot.  It makes me wonder, could it pretty much be said anytime the players aren't sure what move to make, the mc should use that as an opportunity to make a move and give the PC's something to react to?

Well, "aren't sure what thing to do" and then I agree with you. I think you can trade actions that aren't mechanized moves and that is not only okay but expected; performing a move when the attention is on you is optional, not obligatory.

So:

He decides screw it, this guy has the bigger gun and I want it.  So he charges the guy, slides over the roof of the truck, kicks the fellow in the face and wrests the rifle away from him.

Now the guy pulls his own pistol. (MC STOPS TALKING, LOOKS AT BOB)

Bob's player says, "Now back the fuck away from the truck." Bob's player looks at MC, who's all, "Nah you clearly dominate this guy. Don't roll; he backs off."

OR

Bob's player loses sight of his goal and shoots the guy. MC's like, "Seize the truck, roll," 'cause that's what got this all started and why not redirect to something that we forgot.

OR

whatever.

In any case, we ask, what're you doing? not what move're you making? or we lose sight of the fiction and then we can't tell what happened or why.

That makes sense Shreyas.  It should be noted that we are a traditional rpg group as a whole, with myself and MC having played a few sessions of Dogs and IAWA.  Bob's player in particular I dont think has played anything but DnD 2e.  I think that what I take away from this conversation in particular is to let the fiction drive play.

I rarely use Seize By Force anymore. Unless they are both going at the same time, RIGHT THIS SECOND, or I want to sort of collapse the action, I never call for it at the table. Maybe once every five sessions. That's just a guess.

Outside of Pvp, I handle almost all the action scenes with a mix of Go Aggro and Act Under Fire.

You can go Agro in the middle of a fight.

Yeah I kinda see that now, but it seems like the text almost explicitly says not to use it once the weapons were out and being used.

Where do you see that? From page 197
"If the situation doesn't allow for a full exchange of blows, attack for attack, harm for harm, toe to toe, it's not seizing by force."

So if you can get the drop on someone, or attack them at a range where you can hit them without being hit back, it's going aggro even if weapons are out and being used.

This quote, also from 197 is what was tripping us up.

The victim may or may not be able to defend herself, that’s fine either
way — what’s crucial is that the victim isn’t defending herself
yet.

That seems to suggest to me that in a flat out fight, where the victim is actively defending himself, go aggro is right out as an option.  I understand that it is a mistaken impression based on Vincents own words and the prevailing attitude of those who game and of John Harper (whose opinions I really respect).

I guess I would say if you get the drop on someone, or are fighting them from a range their weapon doesn't work at, they aren't able to defend themselves, which makes it going aggro. Since those can both occur during battle, that's at least two ways to go aggro.
The previous paragraph makes it pretty clear that defending themselves here means willing and able to fight back, and not just trying to get out of the way. If that were enough, one could never go aggro, and the possible result of the target scrambling out of the way wouldn't make sense.

Something that happened in my game (and seems legit) :

Me : Princy's gang's all over the place now, shooting left and right, with her in the middle of it. They're like half a dozen fucking hyenas, laughting and shooting and looting and kicking at things.
The Battlebabe : damn. And Boxer (the gunlugger)'s not here. Sucks. I need to get the drop on Princy and make her call her gang back. Can I sneak around or something ?
- Well, you're in the middle of it since you tried - and failed - to go aggro on that guy from her gang. If you want to get out of it, you'll do it under fire, and the fire is : the gang spots you and runs after you (tell the consequence and ask).
- I could... Fuck it. What if I rush towards the gang shooting left and right, hoping for the moment I'm able to get my gun against Princy's back of the neck, like *this* (the player points her gunfinger against the neck of a player) ?
- Hrm... You'll be taking that moment by force, I guess. You do it ?
- Damn right.
- The gang's small but they still outnumber you... (ponders) okay, roll+hard.
- Yay! Eleven! I take definitive hold, I impress like hell because I'm killing people left and right and I inflict terrible damage! I'm like that guy in the korean flick! I jump from roof to roof, both guns blazing, and then I jump like *this*, I backflip, drop a couple mofo and land *just* behind Princy, my gun at her neck!
- Okay, still you're going against a gang. You inflict 4-harm from your high-powered shotgun, plus 1, minus 1 because the gang's small. Wow! You killed and maimed more than half these motherfuckers all by yourself! Still, they have rifles and shit, that's 3-harm, plus the gang's size, minus your corset... Now you stop to breathe, you feel like a mess. You've got a couple bullet wounds *here* and *here*, and the bleeding shorten your breath. Your lungs ache and you're a little dizzy but your hand's strong and steady.
- "Now, lady, you drop your gun and tell what's left of your shitty gang to do likewise, raise their hands slowly and get on their knees. Now. I'm not joking for shit." I cock my gun.
- Roll + cool. Hell : throw in a +1 because they're scared shitless by your performance."

I think it's also about if they're defending themselves right now. If both people are standing and shooting at the same time, here meaning during the same couple of seconds, then it's Seize. But if you watch/read a lot of fiction, that rarely happens.

It's more of a battle thing than a two person thing.

This isn't a rule, but it's a good option sometimes, and totally by the rules: act under fire to go aggro instead of seizing by force.

I'm like, "fuckin' Dremmer is standing on top of your car aiming his assault rifle at you." You're like, "shit, I don't want to trade harm with this bastard, can I get the drop on him somehow, go aggro instead?" And I'm like, "well, how?" And you're like, "I'm a god damned battlebabe, I'm faster than shit, I can get inside his guard." And I'm like, "sure thing! You're acting under fire. If that works out, you'll be on top of your car with him with your knife to his throat, yeah?" "Yeah!"

So you roll+cool to act under fire, then roll+hard to go aggro, and that's how it plays out.