zammm, I appreciate the post. I actually made the thread because I wasn't sure if I could intentionally reveal cards from my hand. In most things in magic, you can't do anything the cards dont say so I wasnt sure.
I havent played at competitive REL, but I play with many who regularly do and I catch wind of some popular rulings about how things are judged there that maybe gave me the wrong impression. For example, I would consider it quite reasonable that a person taking 2 in their upkeep is a pretty clear acknowledgement of a stab wound trigger, but apparently that is not the case from how I am reading the Jackie Lee DQ. Despite the 2 damage, the trigger was considered missed, and the DQ had nothing to do with the missed trigger. It had everything to do with not pointing out a known disrepancy in life totals.
Personally, I feel that trying to argue that the 2 damage was from anything other than stab would, and not an acknowledgement of the trigger, is waaaay harder to rationalize than me not being considered casting a spell if I say Im revealing it, explicitly state I am floating mana, and dont declare targets, and in addition if my opponent makes any reasonable indication they think I have cast it I correct them. My takeaway from my impression of what happened here is: don't jump to conclusions. Say your opponent has a lethal burn spell you know they have, and you have no way of stopping it, you can't jump to the conclusion they are casting it.
Its also very possible I am wrong in my understanding of how the Jackie Lee DQ took place, in which case anyone can feel free to correct me.
Your post seems to indicate that if you try to use rules technicalities to get wins, you will be punished. However, to me, single blocking a pyreheart wolf seems like a pretty clear technicality, the only reason its legal is that its really hard to come up with a trigger rule that makes perfect sense in all cases. However, judges upheld that there was nothing wrong with the play.
In the legal system, there are laws, which obviously cant cover all cases, and precendents people use to interpret those laws. I hope it makes at least some sense that to a player considering transitioning to competitive play, whats considered fair and whats not could seem a bit confusing due to these precendents. Also, since the pros tend to know the rules at least as well as the judges, it would seem like they have a big leg up in these situations, and it definitely seems there are numerous examples of the pros using technicalities, it going to a judge, and they get away with it.
As far as I can tell, trying to trick your opponent into thinking you are doing something you can't do is completely fine. Like I said, this might also be untrue, but the reveal without tapping and gavony township examples lead me to believe this is the case. Maybe my problem is I have trouble seeing the heart of the difference between some of the examples that are considered 'no problem' and some of the examples that are somehow 'shady'.
Lets say, for example, that I have been revealing chandra's fury for every turn of the game, just to make my opponent try to play around it. Probably not the best idea but certainly not illegal as far as I can tell. I could even ask my opponent if me setting the card on the table is ok, with the understanding that this a shortcut for revealing and I let him know that when I plan to cast the spell, I will say, "I am casting 'chandra's fury'", I go ahead and explain what it is I am doing and he has no problem with it. Then a turn comes around where I draw a land so that I am up to 4 mana, and I basically try to make him think I am about to cast fury by moving chandra's fury to the middle of my board and tapping four lands, then staring at my opponent expectantly. I just don't see how this case is any different than chandra's fury being gavony township, and basically trying the same move. As far as I can tell, the township example is 100% legal and not shady. In the fury example basically everyone is telling me: don't do it, you'll get DQ'ed.
Anyways, enough people have all agreed the play is illegal that Im perfectly willing to accept it and move on, but I still find this aspect of the rules unclear.
Its also very possible I am wrong in my understanding of how the Jackie Lee DQ took place, in which case anyone can feel free to correct me.
I'm afraid I don't have time to go into details right now as I'm about to head to work, but I'll come back to this thread later and explain as best I can, as well as respond to your post properly.
Suffice to say there have been a lot of misunderstandings floating around recently about both that and the Pyreheart Wolf incident you mentioned.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real. --Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
It feels likw there's still a lot of discussion about what the rules actually entail and part of the problem is that half of the judges have their own issues.
The rules are, iirc, are pretty clear about a lot of stuff. You can't lie. You can't at any point directly misrepresent a game state. You can ommit all sorts of things.
Additionally, the acknowledgement seems to have a lack of consensus in terms of what it entails. Gesturing at a board full of manadorks and souls tokens with a resolved behemoth and say "that's lethal" with a flourish from the behemoth to the assembled dorkage seems like a reasonable awknowledgement of a trigger, especially since the point is apparently "awknowledging triggers is a skill" silliness that made it into the commentary... is apparently not neccesarily a valid trigger awknowledgement. Luckily "exalty x~foo" works, but... urgh.
Mike Long may have been a dirty cheater who is gone (daddy gone), but it's important to identify him as "a player who got caught cheating and is banned for life because of it"rather than "the definition of what cheating is". At a high enough level play there's a lot of poker style skill. A state where remembering to anounce your triggers is a skill but bluffing, mind games and anything like that which is not actually doing an action (and count me in the camp of "tapping your mana and then clearly displaying a specific spell sure sounds like anouncing and paying costs to me!") is a part of the game that I'm happy about often enough that I think attempts to reign it in should be shot down. Faking a second pump? Good god that was beautiful. Tell me that's not awesome and I'll tell you that kitchen table magic might be the best for you (and keep in mind a play a lot of that too. And then... let's consider the reverse of the equation. In kitchen table magic I may not pull that stuff but you can bet your foil Jace that a level of trash talk that would totally result in a trash talk is the norm and an integral aspect of our enjoyment. In Competitive magic you can pull some sleights of mind and in kitchen table you can be a horribly abusive river of filth and trash talk. Different environments, different mutually exclusive codes of conduct.
Luckily, we have stop-having-fun guys to remind us that having anything more than 60 cards in your deck is tantamount to being a rapist and anyone considering it should be strung up by their **** .
In the Jackie incident, the problem was that he was clearly writing down the damage and that she was playing as if there never was any damage, since the trigger was missed. What I understood from what I read was that she failed to notice to the other player that since the trigger was missed, the life wouldn't go down. If the trigger wasn't missed, however, she still would've been cheating because she was playing as if.
Anyway.
Second thing is about the legal system. It's not true that people get away on technicalities. I'll admit I'm not an expert on the american system of justice, but I know that here in Canada (and we work on the same kind of laws), when someone is clearly abusing the system, the courts find a way to gut him. I've seen again and again people trying to abuse the system and end up wasting thousands of dollars on a lawsuit they lost even though the law is clearly on their side. Don't assume that court blindly apply laws, they don't Isn't that great?
Yeah... Until next game, where it'll be right back.
Seriously, there's no way to deal with Rancor in any format. It should be banned, except Gleemax is a lobbyist for the Rancor party, so that'll never happen.
You can't ban rancor, it just returns to your deck.
You might want to actually talk to the Flavor & Storyline Board people... since, you know, our whole reason for playing Magic is the flavor. I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more interest there than in General.
Indeed, both posters down there would be thrilled.
When talks about banning Jace first started, I was thinking that I would see him banned come June 20th. But as I think more about it, I don't really think that Jace is the problem anymore. Sure his power level leaves very little to the imagination (opening Jace is like opening a refrigerator box with a naked girl on the inside), and sure his price does have a strong impact on what players choose to play (playing Jace is like being intimate with a woman and she doesn't charge you in the morning), but it is not the source of all the problems in Standard.
How do people think saving room to print more abilities on cards is dumbing down the game?
Do you really think, say, Akroma would ever be printed if she said, "Akroma can block by creatures with this ability and cannot be blocked by creatures without this ability. If a creature without this ability would deal combat damage by Akroma would be destroyed, prevent all combat damage that creature would deal to Akroma this combat. Attacking does not cause Akroma to tap. If Akroma is blocked and deals lethal damage, it deals the remainder of its damage to the defending player. Akroma may attack and use abilities that require tapping in the casting cost the turn it enters the battlefield. Akroma cannot be damaged, enchanted, equipped, blocked or targeted by black or red sources" rather than her "dumbed down" wording she has? No freaking way. Keywording and shorthand allows them to make complicated cards easy to play with, allowing them to be printed in the first place.
1. cast frankie peanuts 2. ask opponent "will you concede the game this turn"? if they say yes, you win; if they say no, play a staying power 3. subsequently ask "will you attack this turn"? and "will you cast a spell this turn"? (using a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir for the second question if necessary) to ensure they can't disrupt the combo 4. donate them a platinum angel 5. play a mox lotus and braingeyser them for every card in their library. play an opalescence and donate them a glorious anthem and a blacker lotus , then play enchanted evening . play and activate a mindslaver and then donate them a fastbond and the mox lotus (returning one of the donates to your hand with eternal witness or whatever) 6. during their turn, play every permanent in their hand (playing lands with fastbond) then (as yourself) cast mirrorweave on the blacker lotus, so every permanent becomes a copy of it. proceed to tear up every card they control, and hopefully do it before they notice that they aren't bound by staying power's ability anymore and can concede
Dark Ritual being overpowered is determined more by what is done with it than the card itself.
True, but the fact that it enables so many ridiculous things is pretty telling. It's like, sure I can use a shotgun as a bludgeoning instrument, but that doesn't make it not a shotgun.
Shortly before Serra died, she transferred her spark into an angel whose full name was Asha Avacyn Bolas. Her dragon father groomed her for her positions in Alara and Innistrad, and she's also been getting help from her uncle Ugin in the form of Urza, who was resurrected as Marit Lage to be the avatar as which she projects herself into material realms. Grieslbrand is a split personality who sometimes wanders the planes disguised as a human woman named Liliana Vess.
Everyone's life would be easier if players would, instead of coming to the 'net for help with a deck, just netdeck and be done with it. And I'm not talking about some Top 8 lists, for the Casualists, too, can benefit from netdecking. I've netdecked plenty of decks from the Casual Play forums from users such as Mown, Raedien, Floopfoot, and a few others. I snatched straight the heck out of my web browser. Yes, people, your original idea fell victim to a savage netdecker. You have been assimiliated.
Suppose I wanted a Zombie deck. Why on earth would I spend time searching Gatherer for a decent list of Zombie cards when Raedien already did it for me? Taking time to be creative or waiting on people on the forums to tell you why your deck sucks or 'go to Casual forums' is a disasterous waste of time (to me).
That being said, Magic was ruined back in Alpha when they added all that rules and cards [Debutantes avert your eyes]. My friends and I still like playing it the "pure" way (Basically we go into the woods and hit eachother with wiffle bats while shouting made up obscenities. You know, the way Garfield wanted it to be played).
Don't worry about it. I've come up with a list of changes to fix EDH.
-First off, there's no commander. -The minimum deck size is 60 cards, and each deck can have up to four of each card, save basic lands and relentless rats. Also decks have no color identity. -Starting life total is 20.
Here's a clever play you can try yourself: -Convince friend to run relentless rats.dec in legacy tournament -Get a deck with lots of mill, yixlid jailer, and humility -Drop humility and jailer, wait for him to dump his hand, mill him out -All his rats now have no abilities. Call a judge because he's playing an illegal deck with more than 4 of a single card. -Get him/her banned from competitive magic play
L, is for the leather gloves you weaaaar. O, is for the organs that guy could spaaaare. V, is very very, extraordinay. E, is for every vagrant i butchered in a wine cellar befooooore.
The outer layer of the Magic: the Gathering box, the carton, or crust, is fairly thin and light, and contains largely aluminosilcates.
Within that lies the middle layer, consisting of the familiar booster pack. Although solid, the booster packs' high temperatures allow them to acutally move around within the booster box. This flow, sometimes called convection, is cited by frustrated box mappers as one of WOTC's most genious uses of thermodynamics since the Ravnica block.
No one knows what lies at the core of the booster box, but scientists theorize that it must be especially dense in order to make up for the large amount of fluff distributed amongst the booster packs.
I imagine [Ajani 3's] second ability involves him hurling the creature at your opponent Brion Stoutarm style, then the guy is just like "Okay, that may have worked, but don't- GOD DAMN IT!" as he does it again because cats don't give a **** :33.
Its like that one time Elves broke out in a field of Jund. Elves became a resurgent hit, then died off again once Jund adapted to the rest of the field of G/W that it required mass removal that inherently pooped on Elves too.
Submit to the menace. Delver can, and will blot out the sun.
"I remember my days as a youth at Tolarian Academy ." "Wow, small multiverse, I actually went there too." "WAIT, DON'T- Well ****, there's $200,000 in student loans well spent."
And flavor goes out the window when you cast a second copy of a planeswalker right after the first one dies, so...
"Hey Nissa, I need a favor." "You just asked me for a 'favor' like thirty seconds ago, and it turned out to be having Sarkhan Transmogrify my only follower into a dragon like 5 times -which dickery aside also violates some laws of causality - and then you let me get beaten over the head by that hedron crab." "...I'll give you " "...Well all right then."
GM, I don't think Dill is better than you. I KNOW it. Even if he wakes up every morning, clubs a baby seal, steals all the TV remotes from within a block's radius of his house and then robs hungry orphans of their food he'd be better than you, for the simple reason that he learns from his mistakes.
What would they have to fight about? Like, all I can think of now is Gideon going "Hey, long-ears! I'm gathering a group of 'Walkers together to fight some tentacle monsters.....you want in?" and Tamiyo going "Ew! Hentai no bakka Gideon-desu desu!" and flying away.
I open 4 packs just to be on the safe side. Not only do I get more cards than everyone else, but I also get to spend the rest of the night off. Win Win.
MaRo has a thing for people opening boosters with bad cards. But since he can only get so many bad cards printed in each set, he has found a devious way of getting more bad cards into circulation: He makes entire print sheets with just bad rares, then puts them onto the assembly line. He proceeds to wring his hands and twirl his evil mustache that he grew for twirling purposes as a lightning bolt strikes in the background. Afterwards, he goes to make sure that the good cards are only opened by everyone's friends, and that we all only get to open bad cards. He does this by memorising each booster, than switching them around accordingly. Whenever someone complains about a card, he immediately jumps out from behind a chair to yell "WELL, IT'S NOT FOR YOU!" before merging back into the shadows in order to devise new ways in which he can screw over players, then claim that he has valid reasons for doing so.
Mark Rosewater is sitting in a seemingly innocuous cable TV van, outside of Bankaimastery's house. Sitting nearby are two hardened criminal hackers, fresh out of prison, and filled with resentment at their lack of physical fitness. "Have you managed to hack his brainwaves yet? The set deadline's coming up fast." "We're almost through. It should be coming up on the screen any second." The hacker presses a button, and Kevin's thoughts flash onto the screen. Mark and the hackers stare in amazement at the sheer beauty, the elegance, and the raw truth of what they see. It's like the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Brilliant light shines across the screen, the truth of existence is made clear to them, and they despair at their own foolishness, their own ignorance, their own inadequacy. And then they steal his ideas. As they return back to R&D, Mark sneers at a haggard old man chained to a cast-iron sphere. The man looks up from his laborious task of breaking rocks in the dungeon of Wizards of the Coast headquarters, and asks a question: "Kevin, my greatest student. He - he's all right, isn't he? You didn't hurt him?" Mark deals him a weighty blow with his boot. "Know your place, Richard. Get back to work."
I'm only opposed to it because it bears so little relation to how people actually play the game. The example of Miracles is actually a much better one then the Clone example I was trying to use.
From the game's perspective, the card can move instantly from face down in the library to revealed in the hand and that's fine for the rules. But in real life, we can't actually do that, so the card spends a good bit of time in locations that are neither where that player's library is nor where that player's hand is. And that's fine for real life. What I don't want is the disconnect to be explicitly codified. Along the lines of
183664.697 A game of Magic as laid out by these rules exists only as a pure Platonic ideal, utterly unrealizable by fallible mortals limited by the confines of physicality and the ravages of evil and sin.
183664.698 The cake is a lie, too.
I know it's true, but I don't want the rules to actually straight-up tell me that.
Pfft this cant be serious can it? If it is please delete your account OP. Its not even close to ban worthy, considering what JTMS and stoneforge had to accomplish to get banned i see the WotC selling magic to aquire Pokemon before that ever happens.
I'm trying to imagine sorin markov as a gym leader in one of those pokemon games which you have to beat him to get his badge... somehow I imagine that he would stab you in the chest with his sword before giving you the badge, even if you beat his pokemon....
Personally, I'd be fine with tea time but then I'm not gonna waste the mana summoning Emrakul, the Aeons Torn . He always takes all the sugar, drinks the whole pot of Earl Grey and doesn't even say thank you. SO. RUDE.
Break the Card is a regular thread in the Cards and Combo Forum. Quite simply, the participants are given a Johnnystatic card (e.g. Xenograft ) and are asked to build a deck around it. The winner and honorable mentions are sigged below. Get brewing!
This week's Break the Card was based around Xenograft . Thread : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27681049/Break_the_card_:_Xenograft?pg=1
Winner : Axterix with his Vampdrazi deck. Finalist : Vektor480 with his Ally/Golem/Plant deck. Honorable mentions : Zammm for the Turntimber Ranger combo and TinGorilla for suggesting Sarkhan the Mad .
Here's the link to the Mindlock Orb contest : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27697565/Break_the_Card_:_Mindlock_Orb?sdb=1&pg=last#497536269
Here's the link to Break the Card : Bludgeon Brawl : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27715169/Break_the_Card_:_Bludgeon_Brawl?sdb=1&pg=last#498208797
Winner : Vektor and his Grab the World deck. Finalist : Crandor with his Awesome Aliteration deck. Honorable mentions : RP Jesus with his Wat deck and Zix200 with his Signet Renewal deck.
This week was Followed Footsteps : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27748677/Break_the_Card_:_Followed_Footsteps?pg=1
Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Exponential Growth deck. Honorable mentions : Zix with his Carbon Copies deck and Escef with his Fungus of Speed and Time deck.
This week's card was Jace's Archivist : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28063377/Break_the_Card_:_Jaces_Archivist.
Finalists : Jentaru with his "Consecration of the Draw" deck and HereticSmitty with his "ADHD: The deck" deck. Winner : JaxsonBateman with his "The Archives Are Endless!" deck.
I have one piece of advice for you: don't try this. Ever. Because when (not if) your opponent--or a player at the next table, or a spectator--realizes what's going on and calls me over, you and I are going to have a nice long talk that's almost certain to end with you being disqualified. You're attempting to tightrope walk on a thread two feet over a lava pit here--even if you don't quite fall you're still going to get badly burned.
Generally speaking, any time a player is trying to explain to me how what they were doing wasn't actually cheating because technically they didn't do X, or because they made sure to do Y, I'm going to be extremely skeptical to the point of outright disbelief. Those explanations being made at all means the player knows very well they're doing something shady--either they're cheating and they know it but they're trying to cover their ass after the fact, or they're still cheating but have managed to rationalize their behavior so as to convince themselves it's not really cheating. And I have a very low tolerance for rationalization.
You thought that this was shady enough to warrant making this thread and asking about it before trying it in a real event. The very fact that you felt you had to do that should give you your answer: it's shady, and quite possibly cheating. You shouldn't do it. So don't.
I have one piece of advice for you: don't try this. Ever. Because when (not if) your opponent--or a player at the next table, or a spectator--realizes what's going on and calls me over, you and I are going to have a nice long talk that's almost certain to end with you being disqualified. You're attempting to tightrope walk on a thread two feet over a lava pit here--even if you don't quite fall you're still going to get badly burned.
Generally speaking, any time a player is trying to explain to me how what they were doing wasn't actually cheating because technically they didn't do X, or because they made sure to do Y, I'm going to be extremely skeptical to the point of outright disbelief. Those explanations being made at all means the player knows very well they're doing something shady--either they're cheating and they know it but they're trying to cover their ass after the fact, or they're still cheating but have managed to rationalize their behavior so as to convince themselves it's not really cheating. And I have a very low tolerance for rationalization.
You thought that this was shady enough to warrant making this thread and asking about it before trying it in a real event. The very fact that you felt you had to do that should give you your answer: it's shady, and quite possibly cheating. You shouldn't do it. So don't.
Best response in this thread!
Haha yah. Even if I'm not sure I agree with him, I still respect a level 2 judge's ability to lay down the law
EDIT: D_L yes thats basically my understanding of the Jackie Lee situation as well. Maybe I worded things oddly in my post but this is what I meant to imply
Cyklown: I had forgotten about the behemoth one, but now remember reading about it. Some guy said he did it because he had it done to him. Judges need to step in and clarify to the community whether this type of play is acceptable (Im not convinced it is but could be wrong, seems quite shady I agree).
I don't claim to know the reasoning behind tournament rules, but here's my take on the missed trigger idea: Magic is complex, and your opponent isn't expected to have all your cards memorized. So, to prevent him from having to look across the table at every moment to see if something has triggered "implicitly," there's a rule that says you have to let the guy know something triggered. This might have the side effect of eliminating the "skill" aspect of remembering that exalted triggers when your opponent attacks, but it has the benefit that no one has to commit to memory a list of all creatures with exalted. You can just drop the card and play smoothly, and there's no double-checking.
Similarly, I don't feel that it's your opponent's responsibility to examine Chandra's Fury when you arbitrarily reveal it. Nor is it his responsibility to have memorized its mana cost, and I don't think it's healthy for the game to shrug and say, "Well, he should have just asked what it cost."
My concern with this bluff is that your opponent may not actually realize that he conceded. He's just as likely to walk away thinking you killed him as he is to think he scooped. Most of the time, he won't be explicit about which one he thought. It's my opinion that inducing such a situation, then refusing responsibility for the resulting miscommunication (on which the bluff relies -- if the opponent is clear about why he ended the game, it can easily fall apart), is underhanded.
Ikegami: Apparently my understanding of shortcuts is deficient, I appreciate the correction. If you are saying that tapping mana (any amount of mana) and revealing a card, is a reasonable shortcut for casting, even if you specifically state you are revealing and not casting, then I accept that this line of play is indeed illegal. This, to me, is the most convincing argument I've heard so far as to why this is illegal. I'm still not sure, as if your opponent says "I scoop" its not clear any game actions actually happened. As above, if he says "Im dead" then he is proposing a shortcut you have a clear responsibility to not accept
actually, there are several predefined shortcuts in the Tourney Rules see Section 4.2
MtG Rules Advisor & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ DJ Vortex
DCI Certified Rules Advisor from July 14, 2009 to July 14, 2012 DCI #5209514320
Wit found in Rules Q&A
RPJesus: "Man, screw the rules, I'll play a game of 2HG Archenemy Planechase Emperor EDH draft yet. Once I figure out the rules for it..." Chaikov: "Of course, casual Magic may be played any way your Pokemon group agrees on..." and "It's not logic. It's Magic!" GainsBanding: "I only play online. The Magic Online shuffler is AWESOME!" Ikegami: "one might think [adult cats] would make excellent tokens. The issue, though, is that they are very hard to exile. They return to the battlefield more often than an undying creature." Astarael7: "Does 121.1 imply that players are supposed to wear their poison counters?" Bimmerbot: "If you move the wrong way and [the poison counters] fall, it's a game rule violation" Helluminatus: "Just remember, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the oracle text says creature - Bunny , then by god, it's a bunny." MadCow21: "Who are you and what have you done with the real Chaikov?"
I don't claim to know the reasoning behind tournament rules, but here's my take on the missed trigger idea: Magic is complex, and your opponent isn't expected to have all your cards memorized. So, to prevent him from having to look across the table at every moment to see if something has triggered "implicitly," there's a rule that says you have to let the guy know something triggered. This might have the side effect of eliminating the "skill" aspect of remembering that exalted triggers when your opponent attacks, but it has the benefit that no one has to commit to memory a list of all creatures with exalted. You can just drop the card and play smoothly, and there's no double-checking.
Similarly, I don't feel that it's your opponent's responsibility to examine Chandra's Fury when you arbitrarily reveal it. Nor is it his responsibility to have memorized its mana cost, and I don't think it's healthy for the game to shrug and say, "Well, he should have just asked what it cost."
My concern with this bluff is that your opponent may not actually realize that he conceded. He's just as likely to walk away thinking you killed him as he is to think he scooped. Most of the time, he won't be explicit about which one he thought. It's my opinion that inducing such a situation, then refusing responsibility for the resulting miscommunication (on which the bluff relies -- if the opponent is clear about why he ended the game, it can easily fall apart), is underhanded.
I agree that one big problem with the play is that your opponent might reasonaby not know fury costs five mana, even if you reveal it. That said, in a limited grand prix I would kind of expect my opponent to know all the common cards in a set, especially the playable ones. Also, when you reveal cards you dont have to go over what they do or how much they cost. Your opponent is expected to be able to figure those things out.
You could also ask your opponent after he scoops "did you think I was casting fury, or revealing fury?" and give him the win if he answers casting.. At that point you just have to hope your opponent is very honest. If they thought you were revealing and say casting, all that really happens is you lost a game you were going to lose anyways. If they honestly answer revealing, then I don't see how the bluff is shady.
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
Isn't that great?
