link to source?

Err, I'm the source, actually. From a post of Paul's:*cracks knuckles* Ah, first time I've been able to do that.

Spoken like a true Roshambo noob.

Go ahead -- throw first... I'll beat you every time.

Hehe... but now you can't speculate anymore until you consult the team... no more educated guesses from you Mr. HC!

Wow. If I had that kind of insider status, I'd likely go mad with power.

Not that I haven't already, of course. It's just really hard to tell, given my ridiculously minuscule level of influence.

Hey HC....whatever happened to slowmail anyways? He hasn't been around in a few months now.

Okay, new argument: Define "play again". If I win again, do I exhaust another character and play again?

I don't think the VS Rules team will admit it but the card isn't templated very well (in my opinion)... it should have read:

... play Roshambo again...

At least that's what I believe the intent is, to re-use the entire effect of the card.

honestly, i would say if it becomes a tie (scissors vs scissors) then they go at it again because, if u look at it from both points of views, the guy playing the card has the chance to try and WIN and its better than LOSING so they go again, and the other player will just say okay at least he didn't win and he can lose this one.

I would agree with Erick that the intent of the card is to use the entire effect all over again. At least, that's the way we would play it at my house if you know, we had any Roshambo's...

ok, look, the only reason i personally have problems with rules calls on this card in particular (if you look at any of my prvious posts you'll see that once something has been explained to me, i have no further issue) but i just want to see the official ruling and preferably a link to it before i'm convinced. no offense to anyone, including hc, but from what i understand (and i do not/have not claimed to not have a flawed understanding time to time) but any ruling on this card is so far the unofficial desicion until it becomes actually added to the rules

Well sorry to disappoint, but every judge will rule this based on the ruling given by the guys who write the rules. Plus, I doubt the rules for Rock-Paper-Scissors will be added to the VS Comprehensive Rules Document.

And Erick, it shouldn't read "play Roshambo again", because that would add another effect to the chain. This is all part of resolving one effect.

I understand that, and that's the point, when the first effect of Roshambo resolves, if the outcome is a win of Rock Papers Scissors, it adds another effect of Roshambo to the chain.

Otherwise, explain what the effect will do as currently worded, it won't be able to exhaust another character unless a similar effect is put on the chain.

When an effect resolves, you perform all text in order, as much as possible. If you play a plot twist that read "Exhaust a character, gain 5 endurance, and draw a card.", you would perform all three as part of resolving one effect, not as three separate effects.

This card is recursively expressing "Play Rock-Paper-Scissors. If you win, exhaust a character and play Rock-Paper Scissors. If you win, exhaust a character and play Rock-Paper-Scissors. If you win, exhaust a character and play Rock-Paper-Scissors. If you win, exhaust a character and play Rock-Paper-Scissors. If you win..."

And that's all one effect.

I understand that. I never said they were separate effects.
No... it does not. I can't think off the top of my head any current effect in VS that is recursive like that.
And your interpretation basically has them repeating the entire effect which is why it should be chained. That is why the whole effect has to be put on the chain again in order to repeat the entire process. Otherwise you have no break in priority to allow other effects to chain.