Spellbind question

[Borg]

You must first attach a new spell, and then the original spell goes back into your book. You may, of course, bring out the same type of spell to bind to the wand should you choose to do so, provided you have another in your book.

That's the right way to do it.

Also there are no two spells on the wand at any time and the wand is never without a spell on it either.
Technically, as soon as you put a new one on it, the old one drops off.

[Halewijn]

If you want to spend 3 mana and a quickcast to have the same spell (hidden) on your wand, I don't think you are doing a great job. It's probably one of the worst things possible to do with your actions and mana.

The only time to do this is when you are obviously winning and you want to stall the game. 

[exid]

you never know what can come to your mind after a few hours MW and a few beers...

[bigfatchef]

You must first attach a new spell, and then the original spell goes back into your book. You may, of course, bring out the same type of spell to bind to the wand should you choose to do so, provided you have another in your book.

That's the right way to do it.

Also there are no two spells on the wand at any time and the wand is never without a spell on it either.
Technically, as soon as you put a new one on it, the old one drops off.

Thinking in pictures you take the new spell and by binding it you push the old one away.

[Tyrnan]

could we say that you have to change te spell card, but that you can bind the same spell?

Yes, exactly.
The mere possibility doesn't say that it is particularly good play though.

[Zuberi]

The rules on timing are not clearly spelled out, but the new spell does need to be different from the first. You're not really changing the bound spell if you're keeping the same bound spell. You'd be changing the orientation, but not the spell, which I think is clear is what they meant. This meaning of the word change is also corroborated on page 21 of the rules book where it specifies changing the bound spell to a different spell.

Currently the lack of clarity on timing doesn't really have any effect on game play and can be put off until it becomes relevant.

[exid]

I think we need an official rulling here to know what was meant:
can another card of the same spell be bound when "changing the spell"?

[Boocheck]

I think we need an official rulling here to know what was meant:
can another card of the same spell be bound when "changing the spell"?

You mean like changing one fireball for other fireball? Right now, i didnt se a reason to do that except situation when i will be trying to play mind tricks with my enemy.

[ringkichard]

There're two questions here.
1. Can you remove a Fireball card from a Wand and replace it with a different physical card that is also a Fireball.
2. Can you remove a Fireball card from a wand and replace it with the same physical card?

I've personally always played that question one's answer is yes, and question two's answer is no.

Why would you want to do this? Maybe you're bluffing that you changed your attack. Maybe AW printed a condition marker that goes on spellbound cards and you want to get rid of it the same as if you were switching a corroded Hauberk for a fresh one.

Who knows why you'd want to do it. The question is, can you?

[ringkichard]

Oh, another reason you might swap a spell for another copy of itself: you need to trigger a Jinx, and you want to save both your prepared spells so that you have options later. Swapping the bound spell is a Quick Spell, and will trigger the Jinx.

[Coshade]

I've always played how Kich has played it in that sense.

[Tyrnan]

That's exactly how I play it and what I tried to derive from the meaning of the word "change" in my earlier post. I think it's pretty clear.