Individuals as gangs (NTBFW) + gang size stacking

We've got a Faceless who's taken "NOT TO BE FUCKED WITH" as well as acquired a gang.  We also have a Chopper who has a small gang that he's upgraded to a medium gang.

Presumably, two small gangs attacking together would count as a medium gang, and two medium gangs would count as a large.  Do individuals who attack as gangs count as adding to the gang size increase?  Right now the math we're looking at is:

small gang (Faceless NTBFW) + small gang (Faceless' gang, the Harlots) + medium gang (Chopper's gang, the TenThousand Maniacs) = medium gang + medium gang = large gang

Is there any reason individuals who count as gangs shouldn't stack with the gang sizes they attack with?

That's how I'd do it.

-Vincent

Yeah, I would just be sure to clarify that if PCs-who-are-gangs want to add their size, that means their actions and the NPCs-who-are-gangs' actions are the same. If the PCs eventually start splitting off to do their own heroic battle-things, the gang size will be reduced, unless there's still some reason to imagine them all as part of the same exchanges of harm, etc.

Awesome, thanks guys.  Makes sense to me!

Kind of related, but can a Medium Gang (say the hardholders) split into 2 small gangs so the hard holder can send his gang to two different places/do 2 different things? (I.e. 1/2 of the gang goes aggro on some citizens, and the other 1/2 defends the gates)

Sure! He could even split it up into 4 gangs of 10 (assuming his gang is 40 strong), which are technically also small gangs

Personally, I would consider any elaborate tactical gang-deployment pretty risky for a non-disciplined gang; that's definitely not a Leadership roll you want to miss. What counts as 'elaborate' kind of depends on the fiction as well, e.g. whether there are multiple NPC 'lieutenants' established, how difficult the various tasks are, etc. This is also just generally covered by the rules for how likely a gang is to rout upon taking harm; a bunch of small leaderless gangs are going to be more easily dispersed, so there are generally trade-offs to be made.

I don't think a missed Leadership would be of much immediate consequence, but I do agree that having gangs without a strong present leader is a risky proposition 

Well, there's only a Leadership roll if something is happening with the gangs, so I'll just have to disagree on that one. Splitting your gang up in an effort to extend your power has obvious fictional trade-offs, and the way the game models that kind of increased risk is primarily through increased consequences of missed or partial-hit rolls.

Daniel, could you elaborate? As I read it, a missed Leadership doesn't have immediate consequences: they do it, but you'll hear about it later.
Or am I not understanding something?

It could be that I just didn't remember that Leadership had specific instructions on a miss (I haven't been in a game with a Hardholder in it ages); I seem to have misplaced by rulebook, so can't look it up. If the move specifically says that consequences are delayed, then that's certainly how it works.