Just for my peace of mind, at this point you are only voting for the erratum to be playtested, correct?
This is a big change and will have some ramifications.
CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: Site Phase: Automatic-attacks wrote:The only resources you may play against automatic-attacks are ones that cancel the attack, cancel a strike, or would be otherwise playable during the strike sequence.
I believe the above quote is very closely related to the amendment to Annotation 24 and a clarification found in the Balrog rules:
CRF: Rulings by Term: Timing wrote:# Annotation 24: If a card specifies that more than one action occurs when the card itself is resolved in a chain of effects, all of these actions are to be resolved in the card's chain of effects uninterrupted and in the order listed on the card. No actions may be declared to occur between these multiple actions. The actions listed on the card are considered to have been declared in the reverse order as they are printed.
# (amendment to original version of Annotation 24): As an exception, if one of the effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of its strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence--see Annotation 18 (Turn Sequence, Movement/ Hazard Phase, Combat, Strike Sequence).
Balrog Rules: Specific Rules for MEBA: Cards with Multiple Actions (Clarification) wrote:...As an exception, if one of the effects of a card is an attack, cards may be played that cancel the attack, cancel one of the strikes, or that otherwise are playable during the strike sequence.
So, if we change what you can play vs. automatic-attacks, IMO same should be extended to cards with multiple actions where (at least) one of the effects is an attack. I think Ben's new rule proposal could use a rewording, and I'll be happy to provide one later on, but in general I am for this change as well because it will make the game more intuitive and, even more importantly, fun.