If I use it's first E (Commit, reveal your hand: this attack get's -x damage (min 1) X equals the number of keywords on cards in your hand), and reveal cobra Clutch; does the attack get -1 or -2?

We've been playing it that it would be -1. However your question has prompted me to take a closer look at the wording and it does suggest it would be -2.

Is Stun: 1 a keyword? Yes. Is it on a card in your hand? Yes. Does the card have the keyword ability? No. Does PtP care? I dont think so. Would this terribly unbalance the card? I doubt it... It'll give maybe a couple more points of DR on a few cards. Valkyries Shield, Pheonix Smasher, Lightning Uppercut...

Though looking through the list I come to Law's Somersault Kick which could be a little hairy. It's definitely got -2, there's the multiple: 1 in the combo enhance, but the regular enhance mentions both kick and multiple (they're just not bold). Is it -3? -5?

That's definitely a can of worms. Antigoth, what's the word?

Keywords are the words across the top of the text box. Anything else is just references to keywords, they aren't effectively keywords in and of themselves.

So like for example Double Grounder Beta has the Combo keyword. That's it. Multiple is referenced in the ability, but it's not a keyword on the attack.

That seems like a sensible explaination, except that I can't find anything in the rules to support it.

It is in the rules when describing the parts of a card, if I am not mistaken.

Edit: 2.2.9 is about as far as it would go. Considering the text box is referred to as text box, only whatever is the keyword in the card is a keyword.

Look what I found:

2.2.9 Keyword (See 2.14 Keywords).

2.14 Keywords
Keywords appear in the text boxes of many cards.

While this rule does not actually state where the (fictional)"Keyword Zone" of a card is, it implies it with the references it makes. It points to some very specific examples (The Unique*Weapon on Reaver's Axe, etc), but at the same time, does not use any examples like the ones we are dealing with.

I would go as far as to say that this is an "Intended" mistake, meant to clarify when something counts as a Keyword, and when something does not. Specifically, White Crane again delves into this can of worms, albeit in a different manner.

When you look back at some of the legacy cards, the language when dealing with Keywords has changed slightly. In the past, 'sharing' or 'possessing' was used, while now we are seeing 'total' or just 'with'. This means that we must decide whether the developers are attempting to expand the meaning of Keyword, or if they are intending to define a "Keyword Zone" in the text box.

What we know about Keywords:

• The are in the text box
• They are pre-defined in the Rules
• They are usually referenced while Bold ( Weapon vs weapon, Stun:X vs stun) [This is actually infered, from multiple past examples]
• They do appear at the top of the text box, and are separated by a (dot) symbol

And that is really all the known info, based on written rules. Point 4 does imply some form of order to it all, but at the same time, it does not exclude the possibility that Keywords(in bold) other places on the card would not apply in cases using "total" or "with." This is because that language does not require the card actually possess the keyword the way many older cards did[Note 1]. It instead requires that there exist a keyword on the card, which only means that the possible subjects fulfill criteria 1, 2, and 3.

Note 1: I am making a general statement here. Many older cards share some of the ambiguous language (look at Mercenary) that we are dealing now. However, older cards made reference to Powerful attacks, or Stun attacks, or Multiple attacks, as opposed to "attack with multiple", "attack with powerful", stun etc. Therein is the difference.

-Tinman

I would like an official answer to this question. Especially if the card has to have a working keyword, or just a keyword somewhere in text on the card.