Just curious, what would you answer to the question: "How did you know there was a chain lightning spell available?" Would you say you thought about it and decided to take the risk? :D

Exactly! That's what I'm talking about! So, according to the current rules, you either have to avoid using such opportunities or act at your own risk, and then hope that, for example, a chain lightning spell is available in those Pandora's Boxes. I consider this situation to be, at the very least, a flaw. (It's likely that such possibilities were not taken into account when the rules were created, or am I wrong?). I would like to define this more precisely. For example, allow the use of specific spells against an opponent, and also, in cases where there is a staggered guard, and to attack it, you need to move more than 200 spaces (taking into account the possible penalty), allow not breaking through the staggered guard by moving off the road. This proposal is raw and open for discussion.
There is also another rational proposal, in my opinion: cancel the mandatory confirmation of match reports as a condition for including them in the rating table. This has long been implemented on a friendly website, and in the several years since its introduction (I mean the period when the rating was kept), there was, as far as I remember, only one case of refusal when the opponent refused to acknowledge the game. There are several advantages to this approach: it's no secret that many people play giving their all, and when they lose, they take it very hard... and when they are asked to confirm their defeat (especially by the rating administrators), it is still an unpleasant moment. The second advantage is saving time: if a player has nothing to write about the game, or doesn't have time, it's not a big deal; the report will be taken into account without it. I repeat, it is quite possible to take into account the experience of the Battle.net platform, where there were almost no refusals.
Thank you for your attention; I hope my post will be useful.