Is it fair to impose a rule when playing evil vs evil that wraiths cannot sap eachothers will (same goes for the necromancer/barrow wights)?

Yeah... Would you kill a rignwraith in furst turn...
It is a nice house rule...

It is a fair house rule, but when both players are evil, why fight fair?

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

nice one...Sadly up to now me and my brother always fight good vs evil...

I struggle to see how it could not be fair, as both players suffer exactly the same restrictions.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

Wraiths cost different amounts, someone could take one that only 55pt, the other person takes a 120pt one, the person who only spent 55 pts is geting a better deal because he can kill something that costs 2X as much in one turn.

I think you're misunderstood me...

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

In a local tournment a few days ago, I offered this houserule to my opponent. He accepted...then I thought: "I'm an idiot; I have a budget Nazgul with no trimmings...he has Shadow Lord!" Yes, I would have gotten the better deal...But I would argue that it is as fair as Rumil the 70 point elf hero having a fair shot at beating my 200 point Gulavhar ( 3 attacks against 4, same Fight Value, Rumil's special parry rule). The game wasn't made for Nazguls to fight against each other, true. But before accepting, my opponent pointed out that Shadow Lord has more Will to resist, and there is a 'quicker to the draw' factor' that also equalizes... I would agree with General Elessar: I vote 'fair' (and I won't be offering that houserule again...)

_________________
"make me lunch... worthy of Mordor"

I wrote a scenario based around everybody having a wraith and its respected servents and worked really well with this house rule. If Sap Will is successful 1D6 Will is lost. It gave another tactical decision to make on how many Will to resist as the damage could be less than the dice you might throw.

IMHO something like that should be the actual rule, or maybe 1D3 per point of Will used when casting. Sap Will can radically alter the game otherwise.

As an asie, if you had the Undyind, noone would cast Sap Will on you anwyay because he'd just regain it back again.

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

I agree Sap Will is too game changingly powerful and could use a nerf. So much is dependent on will---Cirdan's whole usefulness can be extingished with a one Will point spell from a budget Nazgul.

_________________
"make me lunch... worthy of Mordor"

Don't forget that you are not supposed to play blue on blue games in LOTR SBG, so no official wraith v wraith rules. I've not come across a problem with the spell in 10 years of gaming, so can't see a problem with it at all. It's ok to theorise possible events, but they rarely if ever happen on the table top.

Considering that magic is really meant to be a sort of something extra to boost the Heroes (and not a mega game changer like WHFB) i can't see an issue with Sap Will, it just means that in the odd magic heavy army (which like all something heavy armies) yes they may be able to sap all your will and get some control over your forces but one lucky shot or two will kill a Nazgul or weakly armoured spellcaster anyway, especially if it has no Fate to fall back on so really it isn't that bad. It isn't like spellcasters haven't got limitations (number of Attacks, limited Will, low Defence) that you can exploit without magic?

'FireKnife'

I fail to see how this is game-breaking for wraith vs wraith or any other situation.
Just resist the spell.

And if you don't succed until you are destroyed?

There's no point resisting Sap Will because it costs Will to do it, so your wraith won't survive any longer (in fact you may need 2 will to resist, so it could cost you more will than actually letting them kill you slowly)

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

Like i said what is the issue?

Lets say a Ringwraith Sap Wills another Ringwraith (both of which are 55pts basic ones). The Sapped Ringwraith has at least 7 Will to resist with. The Ringwraith spends 3 Will to Resist it and does. In the same turn a Harad Archer plants a single arrow into the same Ringwraith and he is gone. At the end of the day the Ringwraith has a chance to resist the spell, against Archery he only has his Defence and Fate (if any) so really it isn't that bad.

Thankfully Magic is limited, often with spellcasters being weak or few in number / not worth use in number.

'FireKnife'

Why would you spend 3 will to resist sap will which only saps one will point?

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

Sap Will reduces the target models Will to 0 outright, it isn't like Courage related spells that take one point at a time, it is a straight to 0 spell. Same as Stengthen Will gives you all your Will back up to starting value, kind of difficult to do if all your Will is gone on a Wraith and it has vanished.

If it was -1 to Will then it would be kind of pointless as then you should just spend the point to resist anyway.

'FireKnife'