Mordok's tome

[MrBubu]

One problem might be that the tome is good globally speaking. Like having the option is definetely nice.
but in every particular round there is a locally better option, so it just doesn't see play.

[iNano78]

I think the tome is completely overpowered. It gives you a flexibility the whole game. Imagine for example having a seeking dispel chosen the whole game. Then you can play your ordinary game and know that you always got a SD. And thats just a thought experiment. I can have a dispel the whole game or perhaps a nullify, you get the point.

In my experience it lets you focus on your game with both of your planned cards and still have a backup plan if something bad happens.

What you describe is strictly worse than having a Mage Wand with Seeking Dispel on it the whole game.

[MrBubu]

how is it strictly worse? both option let you cast sd whenever you want. But if your wand gets dispelled eg in first qc, your sd is also gone, while with the tome you still have it.
Also switching is free with tome

I would still prefer the wand, as it preserves spell points after the second or third use.

[iNano78]

how is it strictly worse? both option let you cast sd whenever you want. But if your wand gets dispelled eg in first qc, your sd is also gone, while with the tome you still have it.
Also switching is free with tome

I would still prefer the wand, as it preserves spell points after the second or third use.

There's no switching if you keep Seeking Dispel as your 3rd option all game, as per Rinc's thought experiment.

With the Tome, you use up the SD every time you cast it; with the Wand, you never run out of SD as long as your opponent doesn't Dissolve your Wand.

You're right, though, about losing your SD if/when your Wand gets Dissolved, but only if you never cast your SD. As long as you get 1 use out of your Wand (compared to getting 1 use out of your Tome), then the Wand is strictly better in a situation where you always choose SD as your 3rd spell option - even if it gets Dissolved.

(OK, there's another situation where a Wand isn't better: if your non-Wizard opponent uses [mwcard=FWI09]Steal Equipment[/mwcard], they'll get to keep your Mage Wand of Seeking Dispel, whereas they wouldn't get to keep your Mordok's Tome.)

[Kelanen]

I think the tome is completely overpowered. It gives you a flexibility the whole game. Imagine for example having a seeking dispel chosen the whole game.

Seeking Dispel on a Mage Wand is far better! (and you can switch it)

[Rinc]

It seems I didnt think that thought experiment through. On the other hand, as soon as I put on a mage wand, it will be dissolved. The tome, I get to keep almost every time.

[Kelanen]

It seems I didnt think that thought experiment through. On the other hand, as soon as I put on a mage wand, it will be dissolved. The tome, I get to keep almost every time.

If it's ntt worth Dissolving, then it's clearly not broken...

[Rinc]

It seems I didnt think that thought experiment through. On the other hand, as soon as I put on a mage wand, it will be dissolved. The tome, I get to keep almost every time.

If it's ntt worth Dissolving, then it's clearly not broken...

Either that, or the opponent does not understand the value I get from it. Anyway, only time will tell if it will be used or not. For me it´s a staple.

[Super Sorcerer]

ב"ה
So far, with a wand and arcane zap as options, specifically with a wizard I didn't feel I need an extra spell prepared. It takes the same slot as a wand and cost the same, but usually I prefer the spellbind trait of the wand over the versatility of the tome, especially with arcane zap as an option that exist anyway. If only it was "mordok's crown" and not compete with the wand on the same slot, it could have been a more interesting option.

[fing80]

this does NOT give you an extra action, if anything it takes the same action and mana as I would use on Mana efficiency. You can only cast 2 spells a turn, so holding 3,4, or 10 cards in your hand doesn't matter. It gives you options however to punish the over committed mage, but not much else.

Just to be sure I didn't play it wrong all the the time: you actually can cast three spells, as long as they are all quick cast spell, can't you?

[Puddnhead]

this does NOT give you an extra action, if anything it takes the same action and mana as I would use on Mana efficiency. You can only cast 2 spells a turn, so holding 3,4, or 10 cards in your hand doesn't matter. It gives you options however to punish the over committed mage, but not much else.

Just to be sure I didn't play it wrong all the the time: you actually can cast three spells, as long as they are all quick cast spell, can't you?

No you cannot.  You have a Quick Cast action that allows a spell and a Full action which allows a Full Action spell OR a Move and ONE quick action spell.

[fing80]

this does NOT give you an extra action, if anything it takes the same action and mana as I would use on Mana efficiency. You can only cast 2 spells a turn, so holding 3,4, or 10 cards in your hand doesn't matter. It gives you options however to punish the over committed mage, but not much else.

Just to be sure I didn't play it wrong all the the time: you actually can cast three spells, as long as they are all quick cast spell, can't you?

No you cannot.  You have a Quick Cast action that allows a spell and a Full action which allows a Full Action spell OR a Move and ONE quick action spell.

Whoa, that's a big mistake. Thanks for clarification.

[drmambo23]

No. You are still restricted to all of the normal casting spells requirements. This card just gives you one extra option. So instead of preparing to spells to cast around you now prepare 3 but can still only cast 2