I would like to comment on what SS-D said.
To some extent, I agree with you about the difficulties in understanding every detail of the rules, which at first glance may seem too complicated and impossible for players who don't want to delve into all of this (especially for those who play rarely), but just want to play. But it has already been repeatedly said that these rules are, so to speak, a template of provisions, according to which controversial moments are resolved, which sooner or later may arise. Some play exclusively for fun, others only for the rating, and still others for both. But I would like to make it so that everyone is happy. If you play for the rating and only the result is important to you, then please find an opponent with the same ideology, play, delve into the rules, make sure that your opponent does not violate them, and in case of a violation, demand that a technical defeat be awarded. If you play for fun? Play without rules or agree on any rules between yourselves. According to reports on ranked online games, people play in different ways, and no one forbids it. All this is discussed before the start of the game via ICQ, so that there is evidence, but if you don't remember some small detail, then you can discuss it during the game, but again, only in writing. I don't remember everything myself, and in one recent game, when I found a mercenary camp, but I don't remember if it's allowed or not, and there is no time to read the rules. I asked my opponent, are we using it or not? We agreed that this object cannot be used in this game, and we continue playing calmly. There was a case where my opponent (I also had this happen more than once) passed by a moved guard, he just didn't notice it. He immediately wrote to me about this, and we agreed that he would simply go back and continue. Sometimes the guards are such that it is impossible to determine who is guarding whom or what, especially when moving from one to another identical respawn points, and this guard also guards some other object. Sometimes I agree to play with someone, and he doesn't know the rules and doesn't want to delve into them. Then I write to him the main points that are very important to me, and the rest is not so important. And nothing, we play. I absolutely don't see any difficulty in this. No one forces anyone to play with a person with whom they don't want to play for one reason or another. Play with whoever you want and trust.
Recently, a fairly large number of players have started playing for the rating: there are newcomers who want to learn how to play, there are experienced and strong players, there are no less strong players from other resources who play according to their own rules, which have been tested and optimized on their own mistakes for more than one year. They are trying to convey to us what is already quite natural for them, and we, so that we do not repeat the pitfalls that they have already gone through. I personally listen to such opinions and analyze the advantages and disadvantages of such proposals, and then draw conclusions.

- Necromancers - don't limit them, remove the Castle when you remove them if it's too difficult for you to play against them

Well, this is not a solution, understand. Why constantly remove Necromancers, thereby completely removing this race from the game.
Regarding native secondary skills, IMHO, let them be, because there is nothing specific and substantial that can be written in the rules about this, and you can always agree individually before the game. A bigger problem for me personally is winning against Necromancers in the form they are in with us, and a native secondary skill is just a small thing.