This is sensible enough, but my point is that this single rule is turning out to be just about the only place where the rules refer to the stat at the top of the hero’s weapon card using the special term “ATTACK.” If that’s right – if you don’t actually make much use of it anywhere else – then it seems clear that you/the rules don’t need it, and I doubt very much that the player needs it.
Writing “Check ATTACK(1)” (without the explanation) gives the impression that there is some special stat called ATTACK, which sets the player on a quest to work out where that stat is specified, or how to do the math to calculate it. But there is no math to do since, as you note elswhere “There are no derived secondary skills” and thus there is no special ATTACK stat.
“ATTACK” must in every case be immediately swapped out for the actual Stat the player will check, as determined by the Hero’s weapon. Once you include that explanation, it’s like writing “Check X(1) where X=Y.” Why ever mention X if, in every case, it will immediately be thrown overboard as only a placeholder for Y?
(ps yes I had muted the thread somehow)