I agree with (other) Toby here. “Not final” is an indication that the tapping of the creatures can be undone so the other person shouldn't react yet, but it's clearly trying to figure out who to attack with. That means we're declaring attackers.

In scenario 1, I'd say were still in precombat main. Active player has proposed a shortcut - the shortcut being:

• I activate my manland
  
• We both pass priority until it resolves, and we're in the declare attackers step
  
• I'll attack with this set of creatures, and pass priority to you.
  

Nonactive player can accept the shortcut, or interrupt it at any point, if they want to take an action. Active Player is held to any choices made up to the point of interruption, but none after. If NAP accepts the shortcut, we're in the declare attackers step with NAP's priority.

If NAP is unclear on what's going on, we reset the game to the beginning of the shortcut, and Active Player has to take his actions explicitly. No infraction, no penalty, and no “get out of manland free” card for NAP.

The only wrinkle is, while investigating, I'd make sure that AP was basically doing his thinking and declaration as a block of actions, and was not fishing for reactions from NAP.

Originally posted by Talin Salway:

I activate my manland
We both pass priority until it resolves, and we're in the declare attackers step
I'll attack with this set of creatures, and pass priority to you.

How does “not final” communicate all that? If a player wants to propose a shortcut, he needs to actually propose it.

In scenario 1, if we had approached Player A, and asked him what he was doing, his answer would clearly be, “determining how I should attack, and if I should activate this manland.”

If we asked what he meant by, “not final,” he'd assuredly say, “I'm a visual sort of guy, I might be tapping some lands to figure it out before going to attackers.”

If we asked, “so, you're in combat?” he'd assuredly say, “Yeah, I'm just figuring out what I'm gonna do here.”

We are definitely in the Beginning of Combat step, unless the active player very specifically said that he wanted to do something in the Main Phase. Manland activation is on the stack, and Non-active player may respond if he/she wishes.

I myself am a visual person and interact much better when I can see the potential lines of play.
I have always (and will always) explain what I am doing very clearly to my opponent before finalizing anything.

In this scenario, I don't normally tap my creatures. I may move my creatures around (or lands, if appropriate) and explain that I am thinking about lines of play and not doing anything official. As long as my opponent is okay with what I am doing and understanding what phase I am in I have never had a problem.

In this situation, ‘not final’ would dictate to me that he is in the declare attacks step. to rectify that, I would explain that I am still in main phase and just thinking through some things. Normally my opponent easily understands this and allows me the time for such an action. I also usually have a relatively fast pace of play so time on the clock is rarely an issue. Additionally, I allow my opponent to do the same.

While this is happening, I do attempt to remember to not slow play. However, with my opponent seeing my thought process in front of them it hasn't caused an issue (and I doubt that it will) as they can clearly see what I am thinking about as I am going through the motions.

Dictation to your actions I have found to be incredibly helpful for magic in explaining when/why I may take additional time to think through actions and maintain a clear understanding of board presence/state of phase.

TL;DR : Clear communication is your friend.
Ruling in this scenario: Declare attackers step, manland cannot be activated.

For scenario 2, I actually see nothing wrong here. No infraction has been commited. Player B didn't have an opportunity to respond and took advantage of his opponent giving free information. He was under no obligation to remind his opponent of his own torpor orb effect as there was no ability put onto the stack. Merely announcing a spell that hasn't had any interaction with board state is not a cause to penalize. Nor is putting a creature onto the battlefield and having your opponent give you free information an infraction. Player B in this scenario didn't mention the triggered ability or motion to target any player.

ruling in this scenario: No infraction, continue game as is.

Originally posted by Michael Shiver:

If a player wants to propose a shortcut, he needs to actually propose it.

Shortcut definitions can most certainly be implied. Ad hoc shortcuts are used in almost every Magic game.

Originally posted by Michael Shiver:

How does “not final” communicate all that? If a player wants to propose a shortcut, he needs to actually propose it.

“not final” doesn't communicate all that. What communicates the shortcut is the end result - certain cards tapped and attacking, and allowing the opponent to respond. Active Player basically demonstrated the game state he intends to reach, and demonstrated (not necessarily in the correct order) the actions it would take to reach that state, assuming his opponent does nothing.

If this is considered a shortcut, I think the shortcut starts in the main phase. i.e., if NAP wants to interrupt the shortcut, they'll have a chance to cast something during the precombat main if they want to. I don't think we should consider the shortcut to start in the beginning of combat step - “not final” and turning creatures sideways could be AP thinking about attacks, or it could be AP thinking about how to cast a convoke spell, so it's not reasonable to assume that NAP is passing priority to go to combat just by allowing AP to think visually.

My take on this is that in this instance it would indeed be a proposed shortcut to Attackers Declared. Reason for this is the end result, as mentioned by Talin above. However, I would rule that it starts in Beginning of Combat, not his Main Phase.
The reason for this is that Player A is attacking, and the fact that he has the opportunity to activate his manland in his Beginning of Combat step. Due to this I would rule that player B interrupts the shortcut at this point, in order to rewind the game as little as possible.

In my mind this is clearly a case of poor communication by Player A, and Player B should not be penalized for this. If we rewind to the Main Phase, player A would still have the possibility to pull out of the attack or cast other non-instant speed spells (or abilities). Despite having committed an intent to attack.

Originally posted by Talin Salway:

What communicates the shortcut is the end result - certain cards tapped and attacking, and allowing the opponent to respond.

I get what you're saying, but skipping straight to the end of a shortcut just seems to me to be a really poor method of describing/proposing it.

Finding out why NAP called a judge seems relevant here. If he has actions he wants to take, we can probably figure out how to accommodate. If he's just trying to dagger his opponent for the pseudo-illegal manland timing I don't think there's anything that needs to be done, call it OOOS and move on with life.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

Finding out why NAP called a judge seems relevant here. If he has actions he wants to take, we can probably figure out how to accommodate. If he's just trying to dagger his opponent for the pseudo-illegal manland timing I don't think there's anything that needs to be done, call it OOOS and move on with life.

Would you rule the same if AP had used the standard “combat” shortcut and after that wanted to activate his manland?

The shortcut (if you must call it that) here is “not final”, not the subsequent actions. AP is clearly indicating he's figuring out how to declare attackers, and NAP is allowing that (judging by the lack of interruption).

Flip it around. If AP said “final” and NAP looked at the attacks and said “I want to do something in your main phase”, allowing that would be bizarre (and likely get a huge complaint from AP). “What did he think I was doing when I said ‘not final’?” This is perfectly fine communication from AP (and no, they can't activate a manland here. That lets them steal a reaction from NAP).

Christian - if a player interrupts a shortcut, they can do so at any point. Even if the shortcut starts in Main Phase, NAP can interrupt after the manland is activated, but before attacks. NAP chooses where to interrupt. A is still held to his attack, unless B chooses to interrupt at an earlier point in the shortcut. (note that if B is interrupting in this judge call, they're probably doing so before declare attackers, in order to tap some creatures down. If they do this, A is not held to any other attacks he intended.)

“What did he think I was doing when I said ‘not final’?”

In the current Standard, NAP could realistically believe that AP was figuring out how to convoke a spell. (which AP wouldn't be able to interrupt).

That said, usually the NAP won't want to cast anything in the opponent's main phase, and will just wait until beginning of combat.

Edited Talin Salway (Aug. 20, 2014 04:16:34 PM)

As Toby has said twice now, the act of “not final” attacker declaring, indicates the player is in the declare attackers step, trying to work out what they will attack with.

If a player uses a shortcut to move from their main phase into their declare attackers step (using pretty much anything that indicates moving into combat), it is too late for them to activate a manland. Why? Also as stated by Toby if you shortcut to combat, without activating a manland you are breaking one of the main requirements for OOOS, gaining information. The fact you haven't activated the manland and moved into combat, and the opponent hasn't responded, has provided information to the active player.