That's not how I'd think of it. The role of anyone in the party is based on what their skills are, not whatever their archetype/profession was. A hunter with agility one is presumably much better at something else. Maybe he had very good wits or something else that allow him to contribute.Players should be free to decide how to distribute the points to the attributes.
But in reality most players tend to focus on the attributes needed for their key skills. A hunter with AGILITY 1 and without COMBAT skill is completly legit, but won´t forfill his role in the party.
My example was a bit provocativ.That's not how I'd think of it. The role of anyone in the party is based on what their skills are, not whatever their archetype/profession was. A hunter with agility one is presumably much better at something else. Maybe he had very good wits or something else that allow him to contribute.
The real problem with an agility 1 hunter is from a narrative standpoint. Why would someone so clumsy have found themselves as a hunter? It's possible but more difficult to imagine.
Key attributes make perfect sense in Alien and Coriolis, even without recourse to the fantasy tropes nor wide genetic diversity... No one has maximum potential in all areas. Given the human range being defined as 1-5, but PCs are 2-4, 2-5 in key, , it just represents the diversity in prior experience and training. But nothing requires the player to raise the key att; if you want to play against type, it lets you.The concept of key attributes only makes sense in world where characters have a wide range of genetical difference, like humans, elves, dwarves, mutants,... Or to create stronger spotlights and extremes, like the "powergamer" dwarven fighter that has six attribute dice instead of max. five like his human college.
I'm 99.9% sure, that the cards will be optional or as the initiative cards in Alien or the FL replaceable with regular playing cards.Do you know if they are still doing the charts in the book, or if they are going to do only cards?