Theres been heated arguments about intent and I've certainly been a bit to zealous about being anti-intent. I feel like I've not fully understood the discussion so I'll break my thinking after watching VaulSC video here (he basically says what I'm about to say): The main argument is whether play by intent is legal or not. And I think it comes down to how its done. How this can be unfun: 1) Not allowing any call of intent wastes lots of time micromanaging every movement and painstaking placing every model to avoid mistakes. This wastes time. 2) Going only by intent ensures you will always slice the pie and can feel very abusive to your opponent. The problem here is one of consent. If your opponent doesn't feel like he has any input in the ARO system then infinity becomes a very unfun where no one bothers to use AROs. 3)You declare your intent to shoot a target, there was an ARO you overlooked (which means you made a mistake) and so you change your order. That feels like cheating. The key is that both players have to agree that the pie-slicing is possible and follow the rules of AROs. You declare a move short order then ask your opponent what AROs can be generated and your intent to place your model to reduce the AROs you face. If its obvious to both players that "pie-slicing" can be done then both can agree to save time and forgoing measuring. If its in doubt then you measure. A simple example of this is in VaulSC video. There a corner of a building, in front of you is an enemy so you move up and shoot the enemy without going past the corner of the building to avoid anymore aros. That is in effect slicing the pie. Its obvious to both players that this can be done so you forgo measuring the precise placement of the model to speed up the game. So the right order would be: 1) You declare your move order and state your intent (what you want to do with this order) 2) ask your opponent what ARO are generated and decide if you both decide you can "slice the pie" then do so. 3) If theres debate you can check LoF. Basically, its important that you and your opponent agree on whats in LoF and whats not. I feel like in past discussions on the topic people were thinking of one of the three unfair practices I listed above and sort of talking past each other. What anti-intent players are really against is a player declare their intent and following through without any input from their opponent. Infinity's ARO system is all about involving your opponent during the active turn. Denying them input feels abusive. What I would suggest is explaining to new players how playing by intent and pie-slicing works and always getting your opponents agreement on when pie-slicing is possible. If in doubt, then check LoF. But in a lot of cases, your opponent will agree. The ARO system is complicated and its difficult to learn how to effectively use so you should always discuss this with new players to your gaming group. Note: I do think most people who play by intent are already doing what I suggest and even people who don't play by intent are effectively doing so anyway without knowing it. I feel like a lot of the arguments of the past have been from misunderstanding then anything else.