"As Played" Window Ruling Contradictions?

jamesatzephyr wrote:

nc-italy wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

It also chimes reasonably well with LSJ's efforts to avoid Magic-like stacks forming

This is just untrue on some extent
As the rule allows actually more magic stacks in the very moment the playing of wakes+canceler is allowed (as it is):

No, the fact that card cancellation exists at all introduces it. LSJ attempted to limit its creep by, for example, banning the use of The Barrens et al in this window, and preventing replaces until the "as played" window closes is a related element.

nc-italy wrote:

Erasing "wakes" like reaction cards from the "as played" window would lessen stacks on it, allowing as it were done was just a call for complications and indeed this discussion is just another case

nc-italy wrote:

Can't do anything more other that putting a clear example about how the actual rule add more "magic stacks" (allowing "wake" reaction cards to be played in the "as announced/played windows")
It's just fact: the more cards you allow to be played in given window the more stacks you add to it

Ankha wrote:

nc-italy wrote:

Erasing "wakes" like reaction cards from the "as played" window would lessen stacks on it, allowing as it were done was just a call for complications and indeed this discussion is just another case

No, this discussion rose because someone didn't read the rulebook part that was quoted by Pascal.

nc-italy wrote:

Can't do anything more other that putting a clear example about how the actual rule add more "magic stacks" (allowing "wake" reaction cards to be played in the "as announced/played windows")
It's just fact: the more cards you allow to be played in given window the more stacks you add to it

No. There's only one "stack": the one induced by the "as announced/played window" effects. You can fit any number of cards in it, it won't create more stacks.