I am I correct in thinking that disrupts cannot be disrupted?

Very interesting question!
I think Disrupts can be disrupted themselves, but I'm not sure. There's this FAQ passage about the resolution sequence that brought me to this oppinion:

1. Disrupt effects
2. Passive effects
3. Forced Response effects
4. Response effects
Disrupt effects can interrupt the
resolution of any of the above effects
if their conditions have been met, and
will resolve completely before the
effect they have interrupted does.

The bold fragment indicates that this is possible.

Furthermore, the core set rulebook speaks of Disrupts as a (special) action, capable of disrupting the resolution of an action. So it should be possible also because of this.

Timing chart has no slots for "responding" to disrupt, but on the other hand it's not ideal, and with Whirling wall it would make much sense.

I think complex disrupt interaction, with many disrupts being played, could use some more detailed explanation, especialy with substitution effects and other effects that greatly modyfy the initial efect, different "timing" of those disrupts (before effect, when effect would do Z, etc). Even worse when there are passives also affecting given effect.

I think cancelling disrupts with cards like Whirling wall does work. (though i do have some doubts on this)

Dark Initiate said:

I do think it really needs more claryfication.

Its not the question of can disrupt be disrupted, other than cancells i dont see much point of that, but rather how multiple disrupts interact with each other.

With this game not using stack mechanics i think it would be more in spirit of the rules to play disrupts one by one. Each of them referring to the last modyfied version of the effect. The only thing that doesnt make sense in this fasion is cancelling disrupts with other disrupt(if it is possible, but i dont see much of a reason to forbid it).

There are quite a few cards that interact with T struggles that are either passives or disrupts:

Kaleidoscope of Calyptra
Characters committed to the same story as Kaleidoscope of Calyptra that would go insane are instead wounded.

Cub Reporter
While Cub Reporter is committed to a story, if he is chosen to go insane because of [Terror] story struggle he does not do so until all other struggles at that story are resolved.

Charles Dexter Ward
Disrupt: If Charles Dexter Ward would go insane, choose another character instead. That character goes insane, if able.

Agency Medic
Disrupt: Sacrifice Agency Medic to cancel 1 wound to a character.

Campus Security Guard
Disrupt: Discard Campus Security Guard from your hand to prevent a Student or Faculty character from going insane.

Cover Me!
Disrupt: If an [Agency] character you control would receive any number of wounds, instead choose an exhausted character to be wounded.

• Doctor Marama Riwhi
Disrupt: When a character committed to the same story as Doctor Marama Riwhi would go insane, you may instead make any other eligible character you control go insane.

• Dr. Henshaw
Disrupt: When Dr. Henshaw would go insane, ready all other [The Agency] characters committed to the same story.

They can create wierd interactions like:
Can Dr, Henshaw be triggered when he loses T struggle to Kaleidoscope of Calyptra?
Can Charles Dexter Ward lose to Kaleidoscope of Calyptra and redirect this going insane before "are wounded instead" is applied, or is passive applied removing "would go insane" disrupt condition?
If Kaleidoscope of Calyptra wins T struggle, loser plays Cover Me! to redirect those wounds, can the other player use Campus Security Guard to cancel going insane thet would be changet to woundinng that would be redirected?
On one side there is Charles dexter Ward, on other Ward + Kaleidoscope of Calyptra (or some other guy with T icon) [there are no other characters in play], both pleyers keep redirecting going insane, what happens?
etc.

.Zephyr. said:

If we believe the timing chart as listed above, the Henshaw's Disrupt acts before Kaleidoscope's Passive Ability.

.Zephyr. said:

CDW's Disrupt would again choose someone else to go insane before Kaleidoscope of Calyptra's passive ability, and someone else would get wounded.

.Zephyr. said:

KoC causes someone to be wounded because its passive ability is resolving. Cover Me! disrupts its resolution, and redirects the wounds to someone else. The other player cannot use Campus Security Guard after resolution of KoC's passive ability because that window has already closed.

.Zephyr. said:

It depends. Is there a Shadowed Woods in play? :-P

@Zephyr: Nice examples.

@AUCodeMonkey: I'm afraid the timing chart is not fully complete :-(
Point 2 about passives only applies to passives worded like "After Khopesh of the Abyss leaves play, shuffle it into its owner's deck.". But it doesn't apply to altering effects, at least. (Altering effects alter the effect during its initiation, which would be step 0 in the above sequence.) perhaps it also doesn't apply to replacement effects, like Calyptra has one.

I'm not 100% sure that a replacement effect replaces the effect during its resolution (which means: after disrupts have been played), but I believed so in the past during my discussion about the timing of passives with Penfold, see here last question #14 and #15. Im not sure anymore because someone could argue that a replacement effect replaces another effect COMPLETELY, meaning that the replacing has to happen during/before initiation, therefor also before disrupts…
Under the assumption that the replacement takes place after disrupts, I come to the same conclusion to the first three answers as you.

To the last question of Zephyr: Player A (with CDW+Calyptra) wins the T struggle. Under the assumption that replacements happen after disrupts, Player B uses his CDW's disrupt and changes the target to A's CDW. Since CDW is worded as a replacement effect itself, player A cannot use his CDW's ability. (Because the replacement is not done yet.) Then the resolution starts, with all replacements happening. End result: Player A's CDW (instead of player B's) takes 1 wound (instead of going insane).
But this strongly asks for confirmation, of course ;-)

Does anyone else know anything about this, or is a rules question the thing to go for?

I got fast answers from Damon Stone about this topic. Here they are:

Q: May a Writhing Wall disrupt a Power Drain wich disrupted something else?

A: Yes.

Q: Player A has Charles Dexter Ward and Kaleidscope of Calyptra committed to a story. Player B only has his C.D. Ward. Player B will lose T struggle. He chooses his CDW and wants to redirect insanity/wounding to A's CDW. Is this possible? (I'm unsure about the timing of passive replacement effects + disrupts.)

A: When a passive and disrupt have the same timing (i.e. when a Charles Dexter Ward would go insane at a story that Kaleidoscope of Calyptra is committed to) disrupts also resolve first.

From the FAQ:

The order of precedence of when an effect takes place, assuming all conditions are met simultaneously, is as follows:
1. Disrupt effects
2. Passive effects
3. Forced Response effects
4. Response effects

Q: If "yes": Player A will want to redirect it back to B's CDW. Is this possible, too? (possible infinite loop.)

A: Yes. And yes it would be an infinite loop which according to the FAQ cause them negate each other and Player B's Charles Dexter Ward would be wounded per Kaleidoscope of Calyptra's passive ability.

Ooh, an infinite loop! Thanks for getting the official answers!

I sent a bunch of questions myself yesterday that have been bugging me.

Thanks, HilariousPete!