An idea occurred to me on the way home and I wondered what other people thought: stackable armour.

I.e. being able to use a Shield, helmet and armour at the same time. I am sure that a lot of people have thought about this before, but I had a pretty neat way of implementing it.

If you have a single item of ARMOUR, it rolls for an armour save as normal. However, you have multiple DIFFERENT items (2 helmets won't help!), they combine to generate new effects:

HELMET: when combined with Armour or a Shield, use the best armour save and add 1 to the die roll.

SHIELD: when combined with Armour, roll 2 dice and choose the best result.

So if you have Armour, a Shield AND a Helmet, you roll 2 dice, choosing the best result and add 1, effectively needing a 3, 4, 5 or 6. Yes, it would be pretty powerful but, I mean, you are carrying around three items of armour, you wouldn't have much room for anything else!

Just an idea. Don't take it too seriously!

So I have to remember how each item interacts with each another item, because this determines their effects? No thank you

May I suggest something simpler.

If you have two or more armor items you may put one of them in the discard pile as a response to losing life. You prevent lose of 1 life per item discarded. You may use this ability even after rolling for armor's effects.

I've toyed around with ideas for alternate Combat and/or Armour rolls. NOTE: Armour is not Defense (that's a tactic or activity); Armour is passive Defense at best, and therefor should thought of as Protection, not Defense. Just something to keep in mind for later, as I may have time to get to how the Shield is not "Armour" and therefor not true "Protection"

Talisman's inherent armor system is very simplified to the point of not only being unrealistic but also unviable mechanically for mixing with alternative Combat rules. The inverse is also true. You cannot chance one without changing the other, so any new Combat system has to have a new approach to Armour system, and the inverse is also true. They cannot be seperated mechanically. But let's go ahead and look at some proposed new Armour systems without a new Combat system.

What's the Max Protection?

First thing to consider is how much full armor (3 different Armour cards) should be worth in protection before messing with the probabilty of Protection succeeding... in saving a "Life." Therein is the key to find how much max protection should be possible. There's a way to estimate it, but not based on armour, combat, or other in game mechancis. It's in the characters themselves!

They have 4 Lives on average, and losing 1 is roughly a 25% lose. Much as killing a character is somehow on a separate gauge, range, or system from killing Enemies (non-sensical, since different enemies might have natural armouring... protection), it is still worth considering. By that base, a good guess is that maxumum armor should not exceed a 75% chance of saving that 1 Life.

With 1 armour card, and 1 die, your chance of rolling any target number is 16.7%. When you get to roll two die and pick which one you want to use, it is not 16.7% anymore; the second die's chance of rolling that target number as well is roughly a 16.7% of the first die. So, to roll a 6 on 1 die, is 16.7%, but to roll a 6 (at least once) on one of two die is 16.7% + (16.7% x .167) = 19.5%. When there are mutiple target numbers that are GOOD, the more die you roll for having more armour cards, the more the chance of success increases not arithmetically but geometrically (in a way). And obviously the base chance would be based on the best armour card you have.

Straight Escalating Dice

• "Armour" has three target numbers out of six, so 50% chance of success
• Add a Helmet and you get to roll one extra die .. BUT you still roll against your best armour card (the Armour), so 50% + (50% x .5) = 75%
• PROBLEM: If a Shield is added as well, and you move to 3 dice for 3 armour cards, here's what you end up with 50% + (50% x .5) + ((50% x .5) x .5) = 87.5%
• We're above our target 75%.

Doubled Dice plus 3rd Card Modifier.

When the third card, or one specific among the three cards, adds a modifier instead of another die, the percentages shift in a different way.

• Armour + Shield = 2d6
• Base chance based on the better card (Armour) is at 75%. For just two armour cards that's a max out of our 75%
• Armour + Helmet = 1d6+1
• The base chance of getting a 4,5,6 has shifted by +1, you can now also succeed when rolling a 3. Base chance of success has increased by 16.7%
• Chance of succes is 50% + 16.6% = 66.6%
• Shield + Helmet = 1d6+1
• Base chance for Shield is two target numbers or 33.3%. Add the Helmet with its +1, and that shifts the roll 16.7%
• Chance of success is 33.3% + 16.6% = 50%
• Somehow a Shield and Helmet are as good as just Armour? Not realistic, actually (but in other ways than you think) and it's regardless that it is a 2 Object burden vs 1 Object burden.
• Armour + Shield + Helmet = 2d6... with +1 to the chosen die.
• There is a set of calculations that should be done to look at each die separately, then add in the percentage shifing effect of the +1. But for rough work, we can cheat without too much inaccuracy in results.
• The +1 can be still be seen as a flat probability shift to any one die. We take that first example of Armour + Shield (75% after picking the best of 2D6). To this we can add +1 (+16.7%) AFTER the roll & choose.
• The result is 91.7% chance of success.... way too high!

In all of this you should see that the problem is not the new system presented, nor even our guesstimated max protection for armour. It is in the restriction of using those orginal target numbers on the cards. IT IS THAT WE ARE USING NEW MECHANICS MIXED WITH OLD STANDARD MECHANICS

We're trying to base a new system of shifting probabilities, with bell curves present, or not, or changing, based on changing numbers of dice and modifiers, then comparing them to 6 numbers from 1 die range with flat probability. Mechanically, it will never work. But there may be a way to use multi-Armour inside Talisman's standard mechanics (if we aren't changing the Combat mechanics as well). And it is the most obvious choice. Take a look...

JC's GRADUATED ARMOR SYSTEM

This is an approach I've seen tried in a few games. It has some flaws but the percentages are quite revealing. When rolling to save a life, you start with the best armour you have. If that fails, you re-roll on the next best armour, and so on. In this case, we need to calculate chance of FAILURE, since that is when and how the next armour card is activated for use.

ARMOUR + SHIELD + HELMET by Standard Target Numbers

• Armour fails on a 1,2,or 3, so you lose a life at 50% chance.
• So 50% of the time you will try the Shield. It fails on a 1, 2, 3, or 4, or 66.7%. But this only happens if the Armour failed, so 50% x .666 = a life still lost at 33.3% chance.
• So 33.3% of the time you will try the Helmet. It fails on 1 thorugh 5, or 83.3%. But this only happens if the Armour and Shield both failed in order, so 33.3% x .833 = 27.7% chance.
• And we subtract 27.7% from 100% = 72.3% CHANCE OF SAVED LIFE for all three armour cards together, in order of best protection.

Now... does that final number seem interesting compared to the original max protection guesstimated? Is there really a way here to use the game's own mechanics to get what we want by only bending the application of standard armour rolls? Let's look at some other possible combinations.

ARMOUR + SHIELD

• Armour failure is 50% chance.
• Subsequent Shield failure is 66.7%; (50 x .667) = 33.3%
• 100% - 33.3% = 66.6% CHANCE OF SAVED LIFE (versus just Armour at 50% chance of saved Life)

ARMOUR + HELMET

• Armour failure is 50% chance.
• Subsequent Helmet failure is 83.3%; (50 x .833) = 41.7%
• 100% - 41.7% = 58.3% CHANCE OF SAVED LIVE (versus just Armour at 50% chance of saved Life)

SHIELD + HELMET

• Shield failure is 66.6% chance
• Subsequent Helmet failure is 83.3%; (66.6 x .833) = 55.5%
• 100% - 55.5% = 44.5% CHANCE OF SAVE LIFE (versus just Shield at 33.3% chance of saved Life)

This Graduated Armour System is my approach and what I studied carefully as something within the standard mechanics. As you can see, it works... and stays within the estimated maximum Protection for all three differing armour cards.

But let's also consider that many of us have or will put alternative Armour cards into the game. I've done so, so I'll be the guinea pig with my "Bracers" card coming out in the final version of the In the Balance Expansion. It is possible, sans using a weapon, for a player to have 4 armour cards (though it would be very rare, since players would be loath to give up a weapon). Some players might see the advantage, once they get a high Strength through point build up and Followers. (Magic Objects wouldn't be applicable, and you'll see why when we get to some house rules to hobble Hoarders!)

Graduate Armour System "Amplified"

ARMOUR + SHIELD + HELMET + "BRACERS"

• Armour failure is 50% chance.
• Subsequent Shield failure is 66.7%; (50 x .667) = 33.3%
• Helmet and Bracers are equal, so we'll do Helmet first
• Subsequent Helmet failurs is 83.3%; (33.3 x .833) = 27.7%
• Subsequent Bracers failure is 83.33%; (27.7 x .833) = 23.1%
• 100% - 23.1% = 76.9% CHANCE OF SAVED LIFE (verus 3 Standard Armour cards at 72.3% chance of saved Life)

I won't go through the other variations of Bracers combined with only 1 or 2 standard Armour cards. As you can see, it still works in consideration of that 75% maximum.

Now we must address how standard rules for carried Objects get abuse through the use of Object hauling Followers. There are also considerations for Fate that should be addressed to avoid abuse AND protect players from foolish choices.

HOUSE RULES for the Graduate Armour System

Fate Use Limitations.

• Only 1 Fate use [as implemented as a blind "do-over"] is allowed during any 1 combat / encounter.

Why is it by combat and not turn or round? This approach allows the player a chance to do so when fighting an Enemy, and then again if attacked by another player during that player's turn. It also allows Fate to be used multiple times in other multiple encounter/combat situations, like any space where multiple enemies might be encountered or drawn.

And Limiting to 1 Fate use per combat / encounter also help keep players from foolishly depleting Fate in multiple uses during one series of multiple armour roles during one combat. There is nothing funny or encouraging for a new player using this armour system and getting out of control in trying to save a life with even just a helmet and bracers. They will do it, wanting to take advantage up multiple armour rolls, but perhaps won't understand Fate's better uses and limited supply.

Object Use Limitations

• Only Objects and Magic Objects currently carried by the character are applicable when Combat begins.
• Objects and Magic Objects may not be changed during Combat.
• Optional: Objects and Magic Objects may only be exchanged from baggage at (1) the beginning of the player's turn before taking any other action, including touching a die, or (2) at the end of the player's turn, signaling that no other activity may be taken thereafter within the player's own turn.
• The player may take actions allowed during another player's turn. This does not include any further change out of Objects from baggage.

With Followers allowing a character to keep more than 4 Objects, there is a loophole in the rules being exploited. There are no rules that govern which Objects are readied and which are in "baggage" when a character attacks or is attacked.

Players (especially object hoarders) treat anything carried by Followers (or other special Objects) as the same as what they carry AND have ready, switchable in an instant and by a whim. A character using 2 Magic Objects for Strength, 1 Weapon, and 1 Armour can (upon being defeated) instantly switch out the weapon and Magic Objects to put on 4 Armour cards. (I will refrain from all the obvious explectives that come to mind!) This is the common trick or loophole exploitation of Hoarders! Give them the smackdown!

Conclusion

So there you have it, my approach to alternative armour use in conjunction with the standard Combat system of Talisman. It dosen't require any complete changes to any one armour card is used or interpreted individually. And it will even work with most alternative Combat systems that determine if and when a Life is potentially lost. It's only downside is multiple rolls in a player's turn, but those already occur in the game for many other reasons. Comments and questions are always welcome... but I have tested this.

In addition, unlike alternative Combat systems, players with no RPG background love this Armour system, even with the necessary house rules!

Eventually, I'd like to write this up a better way and send it to Jon for officially availability to the fan base. I'll get to an alternative for "Shield Defense" versus use as Armour (Protection) when I have more time - and it will also be based in game's standard mechanics.

I haven't considered it yet for 4th ed, but in the past we did as simple a version as possible:

1) No matter how much you can carry, you can only "equip" 4 items for any given encounter.

2) Use all the armor you want (provided they're all unique items) - good luck on your offense.

Therefore, in theory, you could roll up to 3 times per combat loss, but you sacrifice the ability to have more than 1 other cool thing, be it weapon, ring, potion, bottled genie, etc.

Exactly! Using mutliple armor is nothing new. Various groups have probably done it since 1st edition as a variation. The only problem has been the continued loophole on changing out eguipment before, DURING, or after an encounter... when multiple encounters and activities are occuring in the same turn. Fate also adds some new considerations for 4th ed. rev.

You know I've toyed with the idea of house ruling " you can only use 4 things that you can actually carry on your person " that gut have not thought about the ramifications too well. I keep thinking that Talisman is for fun and just do not get around to it but it would sure increase the tactics or some such. Armor also I like the idea of just using another roll or Shield and the others if you have them. It does not seem to slow down play and keeps down the amount of work the alchemist has to do....

I know what you mean... Talisman is meant to be straight forward and simple enough for anyone to play. Then again, I'm the kind that gets bored when any expansion is nothing new but the pictures... and the only change is an increase in the average or median of the Strength and Craft among Enemies. Anyone can do that for no money at all. Thank goodness the new dungeon will at least have the Treasure cards and a board that's about 10-15% different than the past, though we'll still have to see what they're like.

So ... I guess the ideas for alternate combat systems (or any alternatives for the game) are just for those of us interested in more than getting to the standad king of the hill ending one more time. We're the kind that don't mind spending extra time playing and really slugging it out with the monsters. We like what's along the way as much or more than what's at the end. Does that make any sense? Don't sweat it if the alternative combat isn't favored by most of your players clan. There's still times when you get the right mix to mix it up.

I alwayes used to play so that each item protects you seperately(First you roll for the shield, then the helmet, then the armour).

You sayin' it wasn't actually the way it was sussposed to be?

Not 100% sure, but I believe in 2nd you only got to roll on your best piece of armor.

The Alchemist said:

Are you playing the third edition then?

In third edition, you can roll for each piece of armour, but i have decided to choose for the fourth edition rule( about armors)

-------------

JC

Is the rule about armour in fourth edition revised not the same as second edition?

Yes, I usually play the 3rd edition. What is the rule in the fourth edition?

Velhart said:

They should be the same... though I haven't looked it up. Our group has played so long with special rules, it doesn't matter much to us anymore.

In general we haven't t always played stackable (etc.) armor, but we have also had long standing rules about the use (carrying vs "readying") of objects in general. Some of these house rules are reiterated in the PDF that comes with In the Balance, Part 1... more for our optional combat approach (played less often) will be coming with Part 2 (Purchase Cards). Hence we tend to have tougher games where you'd better be selective about your toys you "carried" or "readied" for use when you draw an adventure card.

We also often play the "gang" rule for Enemies. Those of Strength or Craft that are drawn or exist together on a space attack collectively in one Battle or Psychic Combat. (Imagine that Demon getting pulled on a space with a Wraith... or a double draw Dragon.) No need for new Enemy cards which simply have new pictures and bigger numbers... with the gang rule, we've always had that, sans the pictures... and nasty combinations that could easily outstrip anything in an expansion.

Some of the spell casters starting using the gang rule to advantage as well, since Craft characters were (and still are) at a disadvantage. Some of them caught on real quick that when the muscle bound start slathering to kill a dragon for a quick Strength, you can watch their faces fall when you teleport that Dragon on top of another one. Or you can put it in the Cursed Glade (Hoarders kicked and screamed over that trick). Or drop it on the Hidden Valley multi-draw space where the gang rule could kick in with a vengeance. And when another Teleport came up, guess where you could send that dumb thumper who has been annoying you all game?

So in the end, stackable armor was necessary. However, for the probabilities to work correctly your do not start with a type of armor first but the one that has the most protection, then work downward in protection level.

It gave adventurers some chance to stay alive in a game where defeating Enemies could get really bloody, and you couldn't whip out a department store worth of toys in one encounter. Armor doesn't help you win a battle, but it can help keep players from having to start over too often building a new adventurer from scratch. It also made armor more important for play... more sought after than some magic items... like it would for any real adventurer. Mules still played a big part of the game, so you could pick and choose what you thought you needed from turn to turn, but with only four objects (sometimes five) that could be "readied", guess what one of them always was? Often two of them, like Armour and Shield/Helmet. Armor (and Weapons) got so critical at times that when adventurers wacked each other, they'd steal that just to make their competitors vulnerable.

So... any of you care to play our way? Yeah... try the gang rule with some of those Dungeon critters from the previews... heh heh heh.

JCHendee said:

I thought that was standard rules so checked....

From the 1st & 2nd edition rule book:

16:COMBAT

More than one enemy

16:5 If there is more than one Enemy that attacks by Strength, they fight as one creature adding their Strength together and adding one die roll for their Combat Score

4th edition revised says same thing but slightly different wording. (Still not played )

I am trying to think back about the readiness I think we may have experimented with that. It made more sense to me to only have access to the items you carried for encountering a card rather than the full mule-load.

You are correct about the gang rule being in the standard rules.... EXCEPT that most people don't play it. This is one of the most commonly ignored rules in favor of having separate combat with each creature (which is more realistic, actually, since most of these critters wouldn't or couldn't cooperate). And still other groups use other rules to justify this breach... such as the order of encountering cards with the same order number being then encountered alphabetically. Others still say that the multiple fights are harder in the short run, because you can lose more lives in one turn.

Beyond some who hang out here, I've encountered very few groups that stick to the gang rule.

The issue of objects available is also more complicated... at first.

Some must be worn, others wielded with one or two hands, some (most) you cannot use two of the same kind (by logic and/or rules). Still others can remain in baggage/ with Followers and still be used, because they are used outside of typical encounters in situations where swapping out an item would be possible in a safe moment. Once all this is figured out and objects are sub-classified, then it becomes simple to know which items must be among your 4 Object Limit... and which can be carried otherwise and still used (or not) as needed.

JCHendee said:

But the characters turns ends as soon as he/she loses a fight, or even has a stand off.

Isn't that correct?

p.s. I've always played with adding together the strength/craft of multiple enemies with the same encounter number.

That's what it says in the rules, so that's what we do ;-)

RmB303 said:

No, not when playing for separate Enemies, separate Physical/Psychic Combat. You're turn is over after everything has been dealt with that is coming after you. So, as you can see, six of one, half-dozen of the other. One way the combos are harder to defeat, the other, with bad rolls and tough Enemies, there are spaces where in theory you could lose up to 3 lives in one turn... though I've only seen that happen twice.

And the majority of groups I've seen have indeed ignored the gang rule. For when you stop to think about it, just why in the world would an Orge and a Bandit ever team up to pound on Adventurers... let alone say two Dragons share the same feeding ground?

Sorry to disagree (I'm pretty new to this game), but I want to make sure I get things clear in my head.

On page 10 of the rulebook, step 5 for battles clearly states "If the character is defeated or the battle ends in a stand-off, the characters turn then immediately ends"

So if there were still two other monsters on the space to encounter, the player would not get to fight them in a separate battle as his turn has now ended.

So how could he lose more than one life in fights in one turn?

Not arguing, just confused ;-)

Ah ha, I see your point now. I guess it is another house rule situation for those groups I've encountered outside of my own. Our group as well has alternative rules - ones standardized for so long that I overlooked the gang rule as one standard one kept. But I can guess the logic of those other groups versus the illogical way the game is set up.

If you're drawing "Enemies," so called, since when would you (or the rules of the land give you) any choice? Enemies attack, whether you want them to or not. You certainly don't get an "out" because you got your butt kick the first time... Oh, that nasty Ogre (Strength) saw the Wraith (Craft) smack you around, and he just couldn't take advantage after that. Just like another player wanting to kick you while you're down on lives... Enemies are going to do the same.

A lot of Talisman's rules are bizarre and nonsensical because they are constructed not for the game along the way but purely for the endgame .... and supposedly for speed of game (though that's questionable sometimes. This is why there are so many variations of play beyond the rules. That one endgame has been around for 20 years (irregardless of a few alternatives along the way, some of which weren't any better.) That one eand always gets monotonous sooner or later. Of course, once you break one rule and create a new one, inevitable further adjustments are necessary. Hence why that nonsense of ending a turn after one fight was abandoned as well by those separate fight groups... logically.

Personally, I prefer the gang rule, for its form of toughness now and then, though it makes little sense when you think about it. But there's something else here being misinterpreted about that ending of turn rule. It has nothing to do with not being able to take on another fight.

With the standard rule for combining enemies there usually is only one fight. The ending of a turn is about not being able to do other things... such as pick up objects and magic objects on the space that have a higher order number than Enemies. If the adventurer failed to get past the Enemy, it doesn't t get to grab for the freebies. That's what that rule is about. It sort of makes sense, if one sticks to the standard rules where only one fight usually happens. It doesn't make sense if playing separate combats for separate enemies on a space.

An easy way to make more than one type of armour valuable is to degrade all armour items to 1 chance in 6 to save a life and make the bonus stackable.

This means:

Armour getting slightly nerfed overall as you need all 3 armour items to achieve the same effect as the best Armour type..

Knight suffers most from the nerf as he starts with the "best" armour.

You need all three armour types to achieve 50% chance to save a life.

If buying armour, it will be more expensive with a total of 9 gold for en entire suit of armor with shield for the 4+ chance to save a life.

If using these rules you'd probably have to make all armour count as one inventory slot, or none at all (to compensate some for the overall nerf to armour).

(Not tested, just an idea).

My only (quick) comment is that carrying around 3 objects just to get a 50/50 chance of saving a life in combat doesn't sound to me very economical.

It also devalues certain armor objects too irrationally, especially where their cost is concerned.

Hi all,

I just read the topic and came up with another idea for stackable armour, that to mee seems pretty simple and fair.

I came on the idea from the bats in the dungeon - You have to defeat them by 2 in battle.

So my idea was:

1. Always use the best armour for save as normal.
2. For every aditinel armour you have, the enemy have to defeat you with more than that (like the bats in dungeon). Else it is considered a stand off.

An example:

You have armour, shield and helmet. You use the armour for save and the other two for combat modifiers, so the enemy/character have to defeat you with more then two to win, becouse you have two aditionel armour. If he only wins with 1 or 2 it is a stand off.

Hope this makes sense

cheer

So its a crossover of standard Talisman armor use with the Armor Class approach of AD&D and other similar FRPGs.

The problem with using AC modifiers is that on a 1D6 system the potential for invulnerability goes up too quickly sometimes. It works okay in facing Enemies, as it can keep characters from dying off too quickly, and thereby game time is not extended when characters have to start over. But in PvP we've found it doesn't allow enough victories. Overall, armor mod worked best for minimized invulnerability when a bell curve is in the combat rolls of two player opponents... such as using 2D6. In such a case, using an additional roll for one major piece of armor seemed out of sync. It's better to use just one system or the other.

I have used the "margin" system on certain home brew Enemies with natural armoring, regeneration, etc., but simply to avoid the extra roll and additional randomness of rolling that extra die to see if the Enemy actually dies or not. It makes combat against an Enemy more quickly resolved (a real way to speed up the game). But when it comes to players, most aren't going to go for a mixed system. It needs to go the same as fighting Enemies or the standard or stackable armor method, or players just won't care for it. Experience in mixed systems has shown this in actual play in multiple groups.

The stackable armor system, though the slowest, showed greatest favor among the "boardgamers" while the AC margin system was slightly more favored by dominate FRPGers. But the later were comfortable with stackable armor as well along with the draw back that the more armor cards they used personally the fewer other items they could have 'in hand' when they got jumped by a nasty when drawing an Adventure card.

JC's GRADUATED ARMOR SYSTEM

This is an approach I've seen tried in a few games. It has some flaws but the percentages are quite revealing. When rolling to save a life, you start with the best armour you have. If that fails, you re-roll on the next best armour, and so on. In this case, we need to calculate chance of FAILURE, since that is when and how the next armour card is activated for use.

My friends and I just started implementing this system a few years ago. It seems to work well and gives us more things to spend money on. In the 3'rd edition armor would break on a roll of 1 so we played if the armor broke the hit was atoumatic and you could not use the armor, sheild, or helmet in combinatiion to save a life in that batle. It is a fun variation that puts value in having multiple armor piecies.

Yes, the G.A.S. has been around for at least 20 years under various names, all the way back to 2E (and maybe 1E). But it only works well if one closes certain loopholes in the game, such as players thinking anything carried by a Follower is instantly available at all times. Armour should only be usable if it is one the adventurer and no where else. This includes any magical forms of protection from losing a life in Combat / Battle.

As to armor breakage, a roll of 1 is 16.7% chance and that is way too high for either passive (Helmet, Armor) or active (Shield) armoring. If you want to work with breakage that doesn't happen that often, try the following.

• On a roll of 1 to save a Life with an Armour piece, a second roll must be
• Roll the die again vs the same target numbers on the Armour's card
• If it fails the 2nd roll, it is rendered unusable (but is not discarded if the game is using "repair" rules).

Example: Buck is wearing "Armour"; he rolls to save a life and rolls a 1. He's lost the life, but the hit was so strong that he now has to see if the armor was rendered unusable. He rolls again, hoping for that 4,5, or 6, though this time its for the Armour to save itself. He rolls a 3 (and has no Fate points to spend for a re-roll). His Armour failed its own roll and is now useless.

This approach rectifies two problems with a 1 roll failure to lose a life and the armour.

1. It takes into account that any armour with more target numbers is bigger and or tougher to damage, and
2. it reduces the excessive 16.7% chance of armor automatically failing on top of it being rendered usless.

From another point of view, this is somewhat of a backward approach. If you lose a life, that doesn't always mean the armor failed nor was damage. And if you save a life, that doesn't mean the armour wasn't damaged. The above approach also has some problems in verisimilitude, just like use a flat 1 on the first roll. Another approach I've seen that is slightly more cumbersome has to do with the Combat (Battle) roll itself.

When two combatants make their rolls, and the winner's roll is 6+ higher, any armour used by the loser to save a life must also make a roll to save itself, just as outlined above. The armour can still save a life, but it may be rendered useless regardless, which is still a logical real outcome. Again, this approach tamps down excessively high percentage chance of armour loss, but makes it a real possibility. It also reduces how often that second roll is required.

NOTE: this approach of margin is best used with a 2D6 combat system, though it is workable with 1D6. The problem with the standard 1D6 system (aside from adventurers becoming to quickly untouchable) is that too often a potent adventurer hopped up on magic items can pick on a weaker one and destroy its armor too easily, keeping it down even more than by just that artificially superior attribute. In the 2D6 system. A Strength 2 opponent still has a chance to ass kill one with Strength 9, and get a margin of 6. In the 1D6 system, that Strength 2 has no chance of winning at all, and its armor will always get bashed for an extra save roll.

I've always thought 1D6 (or most 1 die of any kind) combat sucks; its good for fast and simple play, but it has too many shortcomings, loopholes, and frustrations.