+1 to sIKE. Wizard has too many options.

What will this do to the meta? I am quite sure the majority of builds will include 5-6 Dispels and 2-4 Seeking Dispels. In such a meta how many builds will include enchantments which cost more than two spellpoints? I might take some enchants for three spellpoints in my books (e.g. triple cost lvl one), but I would really hesitate to include level two out of school enchants into any book or level four enchants like Forcefield.

It'll definitely change the meta, but I'm not sure it'll be for the worse. I think one of two things is likely to happen.

1) People will begin saving their large enchantments for the endgame after they've already drawn dispels with lesser enchantments. If I'm playing a forcemaster and I want to use my forcefield(s) late game I might drop a magebane or two early game so my opponent has to choose between leaving the magebanes in place and saving his dispels for the big stuff or he can suffer the effects of the curse the entire game. And since I'm getting my own dispels and nullifies cheaper I'll have the extra book points to add the extra magebanes.

2) People will cluster their enchantments more (BB style). My forcemaster might not jump into the fray until she's got a facedown bear strength, mongoose agility, forcefield, nullify, decoy, regrowth on her. Then I reveal all at once and let my opponent either try to dispel them one at a time (very time and mana intensive) or go for the purge magic (and let him hope he guesses right on his seeking dispel lest he target the decoy).

A change? Sure. A change for the worse? I don't think so.

I agree that Epic is the simplest and best fix for the tower. Here's an alternative to the Wizard nerf off the top of my head. What if this sentence was added to the Training section of the rulebook: "Because they are critical for any mage and are among the first spells learned in any magic curriculum, all mages are considered trained in level 1 arcane spells regardless of their other training restrictions."

Casting evade plus charge in the same turn doesn't leave you a lot of wiggle room. I suggest adding an enchantment or two to take some of the weight off (cheetah speed or mongoose agility).

While we're on the subject of changing or not changing the wizard's stat card, there's another angle I think we should look at. The folks at AW want their game to stay accessible to new players, and with good reason. They rightly conclude that having a bunch of card erratas running around makes the game less accessible for new players who can become frustrated when they learn that the cards in their new game don't do what they say they do. However, the wizard is broken and needs fixing. Right now it looks like there are two options for fixing it.

1) Errata a mage card
2) Release cards in future expansions (hopefully beginning with FiF) to bring the wizard into check.

So what's easier for a new player to swallow? In scenario 1, the new player gets the frustration of having a major modification to their base game. In scenario 2, the base game works as advertised (except for the 3 erratas already in place, but they're minor). However, when they start buying expansions the power level of the different mages gets all out of whack until they've collected them all (and until all the major wizard fixes get implemented, which I expect to take 2 expansions, it just won't get fixed).

So which of these options will serve the game better by being the most accessible to new players?
For new players who just want the base game and aren't going to make a hobby out of it, option 2 is better, but I honestly don't think it matters because I don't think that sort of player will pay any attention to the errata (just as there are base-game only players out there somewhere right now applying Bear Strength to both attacks after casting Battle Fury). Option 1 is much better for players who are going to make a hobby out of the game, not only because it allows them to maintain approximate parity with their friend who already owns all of the expansions while they take 6 months to a year to get caught up, but also because most people who are used to hobby games take a little errata in stride (and at this point MW has a very minimal amount of errata).

For this out-of-game reason, as well as for in-game reasons (which I also think favor an errata to the wizard, although I know others disagree) I think an errata to the wizard card would be a vast improvement over the alternative.

Can you show us a copy of the minotaur card?

I think having more novice spells would be great. In hindsight I think they should've initially decided that either all mages or no mages were trained in arcane to maintain parity, but since that ship has sailed more novice spells will restore the balance some. I think non mandatory Nullify and block are too powerful, though.  I'd revise them so optional Nullify could only affect level 1 spells and block reduced attack dice by 4. That way books that depend on a big few creatures or spells aren't completely hobbled.