Besides, I'm rather missing the point where anything about this is metagaming. As I said in another thread, 95% of all metagaming COULD have been roleplaying. It's all in how you phrase it:
"Quickly, when I hit it, circle around behind it. It can't hit us both if we're on opposite sides."
vs
"I activate my power, I hit for 15 damage. I can shift you one square. I'll move you towards the flank. On your turn, you can shift into flanking before attacking."
You know, the first time my group used grid and minis in battle was in 3E. We managed to play for, what, fifteen years or so without them. And still we don't always use them, because practically only spell effects require you to actually to know where everyone is. Most of the feats and actions certainly don't require it -- it is enough that you know if you can flank someone and distances between you and your enemies. And in my experience using the grid and minis seem to increase and encourage metagaming -- it's almost as if the players think: "Alright, now we have this boardgame sequence and I'll have to play tactically smart and be prepared to do anything so that my team wins".
In 3E many combat choices and feats affected your own performance only, but 4E tries to encourage more dynamic group tactics, which will probably result with a lot of metagaming and out-of-character tactical discussion during combat ("No! Don't do that, because I'm going to slide you two squares on my turn!" or "Is it okay if I move your guy with my 'White Raven Apocalyptic Assault'? Now you'll get into flanking position and since this 5th level Orc Hammerbasher is 'bloodied' and 'marked' it'll die in one round."). Anyway, I doubt that the tactical, boardgame-y nature of 4E combat will increase role-playing or in-character tactical advice -- quite the opposite, in fact.
Just cause the rules let you do something that is described in a game mechanical way doesn't mean it is metagaming to use them. In fact, it's often clearer to describe something in terms of game mechanics instead of in role playing speech. Which is why those who showed up at DDXP might have noticed all DMs telling the players "The creature is now bloodied" instead of "It looks hurt" and "It is stunned" vs "It took a hard blow to the head". It doesn't do the players a service to give the players incomplete or ambiguous information when they might have abilities that can only be used on stunned or bloodied creatures.
The game mechanics are supposed to wrap all the complexities of the couple hundred different movements, feints, shifts, facial expressions, near missed, and the like of combat into simple, easy to understand packages for us humans to understand and play a fun game with in less than 2 days. It is easier for them to do their job if they are described as "Shift an ally 2 squares" than it is if it said "One creature, designated by you can move an extra 10 feet of movement during its next turn. This movement doesn't provoke AOO, however, any move after the 10 feet does." Plus, moving a creature on its turn is a whole lot less tactically useful than being able to react in the middle of battle to changing tactics.
And The DMs could have said: "It took a hard blow to the head and is bleeding heavily. The creature is now 'bloodied'". IMO a lot of the powers and actions and situations are pretty hard to describe in character, such as 'marking' ("Stop staring at my guy! Find another guy to mark!"). Besides, it's weird that marks are erased, because realistically their effects should stack. Then again, as HPs are supposed to now mainly represent your stamina and "morale", you'd realistically expect that any physical action for extended period of time and intimidating someone would actually cause HP damage.
I think WFRP 2nd Edition does it a lot better by excluding only some tactical actions (because they're granted by Advanced Skills only) to everyone and including a diverse set of weapon qualities. For example, you don't need an X number of powers to maneuver (shift) a creature and to hit it in the same round. In my opinion it works really beautifully and without additional and unnecessary layers of complexity.
I agree that it is far more clearer to use explicit terms, but I'm already getting a headche of everything you need to track or remember in 4E combat. Not to mention that the tactical choices offered by the powers do indeed resemble tapping cards and mana in MtG -- and like in MtG, the "secondary" effects of some powers (such as all this 'sliding' and 'shifting' stuff) seem to be the main tactical reason for using them. For example, you could 'shift' or 'slide' opponents off the edge of a cliff or a bridge or into a trap or you could 'slide' an ally to safety. As I said before, this increased focus on group tactics and powers that affect your allies -- in addition to some powers seemingly existing only to provide "cool" and cinematic combat abilities which inexperienced players especially may find hard to explain in-character -- will probably increase metagaming and reduce the amount of role-playing in combat.
Personally, I especially find these OAs and 'reactions' during other characters' or monsters' turns (granted by, for example, 'Feather me yon beast!' and 'White Raven Onslaught') probably the hardest powers to explain.
I'm pretty much open about different games and their rules workings. I guess it's the fact that this is D&D 4E we're talking about that lets me take a much closer look at it to see if it has the right feeling for me to be D&D. As its own game, I'd not take a second look at it...wouldn't play it either, though, due to having enough stuff I want to play still, and too little time already. 
