Yeah I get what you're saying, but I think Annotation 10 gives us the leeway to actually have more than one attack in a chain of effects (due to ahunts and such), if we want to look at it so. If we don't want to look at it so, then of course it doesn't.
CRF wrote:Annotation 15: An attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects; i.e., a creature card may not be played in response to another card in the same chain of effects. Revealing an on-guard creature is an exception.
Any card that has the potential to immediately create an attack is considered an attack for purposes of interpreting Annotation 15.
The part about a creature card (or any other card with potential to create an attack) is not an example of what cannot be done, it is a clarification
. So what Anno 15 is really saying, is that you may not respond to any declared action by playing a card
that has potential to create an attack.
And because Annotation 15 says "an attack must be the first declared action in a chain of effects", if you have multiple passive conditions going off with some of them being attacks, then those attacks would have a different level of priority from the rest of the actions. But all the attacks are with the same level of priority, which is where Annotation 10 comes in.
CRF wrote:Annotation 10: If more than one action is required to be the first action declared in a chain of effects, the player whose turn it is chooses the order in which they are declared. No other actions may be declared in this follow-up chain until the multiple required actions have been declared.
So Annotation 10 works for all the actions that are required to be the first action. All attacks from ahunts are required to be the first action per Anno 15. Applying Annotation 10 to them would seem to make sense. If one wants to see it that way.