I'd say the quality of spells by far surpasses the need for quantity. I'd rather take 50 spells that are solid and awesome. With more quality stuff added in expansions.

I'd really like to see some dual elemental spells.  Those by far have always been my favorite.  Wind/fire    Earth/water.  Anything really.  It would add a lot more spice and you'd still be able to keep them simple enough to program for the AI.

Personally I'm not so worried about the quantity of spells. For one, quantity is something that can easily be added later, and soon enough that most people won't have had time to get bored of what the game is shipped with (and, like you say, it looks like we'll have well upwards of 100 spells at release).

But I am worried about the quality of spells ('worried' as in, hopefully the devs will continue fleshing them out). Reading through that chart, I wasn't struck by the creativity of the magic but by the blandness of it all. There are some gems for sure (I am particularly partial to terrain-altering magic), but there's a lot of pretty boring stuff, and a heck of a lot of repetition. Plus, the organization seems a little haphazard and could also use some work, I think.

Can you put those fun spells that (is hard for AI to use well) into the Lost Spells?    This will allow the existence of cool spells on the day of game release.

When you have more time to finish the spell related AI, move them from the Lost Spellbook to the main list.

When I say this, I do not know how Lost Spell is acquired.  When AI player stumble upon those lost spells that they cannot use, a normal spell (of similar power) is granted.  

Not having any cool spell to play with at game release day is not enjoyable.

Indeed. I think we'll have plenty of spells to work with at release.

Agreed, Quality is also a very important factor, but then again, so is Variety. I don't mind having 4 damage spells that all do the exact same thing as far as "damage" but may have different secondary effects from their various schools of magic.

Example:

Fireball does 10 Damage. A "Fire Elemental" is Immune to Fire Damage. Instead of casting the 10 Damage Fireball, I cast the 10 Damage Ice Bolt. Ice Bolt does 10 Damage, but probably wouldn't effect a "Ice Elemental".

Are those spells really "Quality" spells? Honestly, they are just standard D&D type spells. Still fun of course and providing variety is important. Some portion or percent of the base spells though should be things Unique to Elemental:WoM. These ones I think would be of the best "Quality". As always though, what one person thinks is "Quality" might not match what someone else thinks is "Quality".

Agreed, going dual elemental should be encouraged by more powerful combination spells. But perhaps the opposing elements (fire/ice and air/earth) shouldn't be combined.

Meteor Strike (Fire/Earth, ultimate city bombardment spell)

Blizzard (Air/Ice, freezes/kills in a huge radius)

Winter's Grasp (Ice/Earth, freezes the ground and disables farming)

Rain of Fire (Fire/Air, huge radius with potential to destroy a lot of weaker units or set entire cities on fire)

All I know is that in EVERY game of this type, in all of computer game'dom, when you only get to cast one spell per turn, people cast the Area-of-Effect damage spell every time.  Ev-er-y time.  If multiple "smaller" spells were allowed to be cast per turn, that might help.  A chance to cast a counter/defensive spells against a spell an enemy is starting to cast would be great too.  Anything that adds some strategy depth to spell combat instead of :Aoe, Aoe, Aoe,. . . . .