To summarize the language used in the rules excerpts quoted below, a player declaring a Move action: measures where the Trooper can move and places the Trooper at the final point of its movement declares the final location and the exact route that the Trooper takes to reach it must measure the complete route, including detours taken to avoid obstacles specify the entire route must measure the complete route Ergo, all the extreme points of the route have to be known. If you go around a small car, you need to show how far wide you went. If you pop out of a corner "just to see one guy #3", you have to both clearly indicate position "B", as well as make a measurement between positions A and B to check if you have enough of movement left once you turn back. In the example below it's relevant as a 4-4 Trooper would have to remain in position "B" after first short Move order. A 6-4 Trooper would be able to pull back 2" into full cover and an 8-4 trooper would be able to return to position "A". It is also relevant for LOF/ARO check on Troopers 1 and 2, as well as ensuring the orange Trooper has managed to get into visual contact with Trooper 3 at all; and also because the Reactive Player is allowed to ask the Active player to place a Silhouette at position B and check if his "HD" Trooper should reveal and, for example, fire. Conclusion: Placement in position "B" or the route taken by the Active player's model cannot be strictly "virtual" or "declaratory". It needs to be shown (complete route, including extremes, as well as final position), at the very least on Reactive Player's request, with a model on an appropriate sized base or an appropriate SX Silhouette. One cannot simply declare "I move my model far enough to get the purple Line of Fire on model 3 and then move back". It does not satisfy the requirements of declaring, measuring and specifying the entire route, as well as the final position taken by the model. QED.
This is a question of etiquette, not rules. As long as both players feel like they understand the positions involved, any method of resolution is acceptable.
In the past I have played intent which includes placing the model in the final location, or clearing showing the path of travel because of hidden deployment AROs. The game really requires this. In the active turn, I would never place a model in a space in which I didn't believe I was satisfying the communicated intent. For me, the purpose of intent communication is to make the game smoother in the resolution phase, without needing to check it from every possible angle. My opponent and I have the best vantage point. If we can agree the intent is met quickly, and there won't be disagreement in the resolution phase, this makes for a positive gaming experience for me, and the vast majority of opponents I have faced. I prefer to play that way, and most people in my meta do as well. I believe we will largely continue to play this way. I love your illustration. Allowing the use of straight line aids at any time can really get a player where they want to be without intent (between 3 and 2). This is really my last question on the subject. Can they be used at any time? If not, and without intent, it sets up an adversarial moment on nearly every order of the active turn. No thanks, I have no interest in playing that version of Infinity.
