That's sounds cool - I might use that.
Another question. To what degree have Apocalypse World (to what ever degree) turned into Player vs Player?
From my experience in can happen alot - not that there is anything wrong with it and the rules tackles it neatly. But a group that some of my friends played in, didn't do it at all - instead creating a very tightly nit group, working with and around a travelling hospital, sort of "ER" meets "Carnivale", with a strong us-against-the-world vibe.
So how has your groups and sessions turned out?
PvP on the level of conspiring against one another was very common. That's why earlier on I said it felt almost like Amber Diceless in play. Nobody killed anybody else, but I think that was just due to slight reticence on our part not to go quite that far - there were situations in which it seemed the likely outcome but we stepped (perhaps unrealistically) back from the brink.
We were certainly constantly scheming against one another, and each of us was involved in the murder of close allies of each other more than once. Our game quickly developed into a kind of power struggle for the fate of the town where we lived - though we were forced to ally with one another against external threats. I loved that about the game, too: it seemed tailor-made for that sort of scenario to arise. We were enemies, but had to cooperate at the same time, which led to striking temporary bargains, truces, etc., while never stopping plotting the next move. Very Machiavellian, cloak-and-dagger stuff, to an extent I've not encountered in a game before.