I see what you guys are saying. I really do. If EM was worded with present or past tense terminology I would've agreed from the beginning. However… it doesn't so thus I'm here. lol.
With my "current" understanding on things I believe EM's replacement effect to be an effect that replaces its designation as a target for a wounding or insanity, not so much it being wounded or made insane.
Consider this scenario.
1. Player A wants to use Dynamite's action.
a). Determine the cost (to either play the card or pay for the card's effect) or costs (if multiple costs are necessary for the inteded action).
b) Check play restrictions, including verification and designation of applicable targets or cards to be effected. (this is a new addition)
-> *** Conidition Met *** EM is designated by an effect that would wound it. EM"s ability alters what was all was designated as targets for the effect by becoming an attachment which cannot be wounded or be made insane. Resolve EM's ability.
(now, I'm not 100% sure if we go back to the top of step 1 or not, but don't think that really matters in this case though…however it wouldn't hurt my point if an 'altering' passive ability would cause us to do so)
c) Apply any penalties to the cost(s). (Any effects that modify a penalty are applied to that penalty before it becomes a part of the cost.)
d) Appy any other active modifiers (including reducers) to the cost(s).
e) Pay the cost(s).
f) Pay the card, or trigger the effect. Choose targets (if applicable) and proceed to step two. (funny story, think this is actually a typo on the non-printer friendly version of the FAQ. it should say "Play" however I will invoke a disclaimer that I may of made other typos in this post this is the only one I picked out that wasn't me )
2. Disrupts - In clockwise order, players no have the opportunity to disrupt the action. If all players pass then the action will be executed, and can no longer be disrupted.
a) Player B plays Writing Wall to cancel Dynamite's action. (repeat steps 1a-1f to play the disrupt)
Now, the FAQ does say that any passive abilities that are triggered as a result of the action are initiated in step 4. Aka, after step 3. Action is executed. However, due to another new addition to the FAQ:
"NOTE: If a passive ability would alter the action as it is being resolved, the passive is first resolved on the action, which now altered, is initiated. A Disrupt triggered disrupts the altered action no the action before the passive is applied."
I interpreted that to mean becuase EM's replacement effect alters what was designated as a target(s) (my opinion of course), that it should resolve before the disrupt window is opened. Ya know… cause its altering what was designated and what would happen to EM if the effect were to be executed.
Also keep in mind that 7) Action is resolved (end of action) doesn't come up until AFTER the window for responses has closed and that the action is considered "resloving" from the moment it is initiated in step 1 till end of step 6.
In addition, the reason why I read/am reading it this way is that EM is worded exactly like several other effects that are commonly(or in my opinion, all are) triggered before the action is executed (step 3). So, intuitively, I'm reading that it triggers/resolved somewhere before step 3. Otherwise its wording would/should reflect that the effect happens after step 3, which it doesn't in my opinion. Digging deeper… obviously I came up with what I said above.
….whew. That was a lot. If nothing else, perhaps you'll definately see why I'm confused by this ruling. =/