Philosophers of action of different persuasions have suggested that there is a tight connection between the phenomenon of intending and the phenomena of "being settled on" and of "settling" a course of action. My intention to attend a conference this weekend settles in my mind the issue of what to do then. It also settles that issue in fact, since it leads me to attend the conference this weekend. Many have suggested, in addition, that the cited connection supports an important constraint on intention. The constraint, to put it simply, is that one may only intend what one takes one's so intending as settling. Thus, one cannot intend to win the lottery if one does not take one's so intending as settling the issue of one's winning it, as being efficacious in causing that result. This condition has traditionally been understood as a doxastic constraint on intention: what one takes one's intention as settling is what one believes one's so intending as settling.In this paper I propose an alternative conception of such a constraint. I suggest that we conceive of it in terms of the attitude of reliance, rather than of belief. My aim in the paper is three-fold: to clarify the connection between intending to act and the phenomena of being settled on and of settling a course of action; to provide support for the reliance conception of the cited constraint; and to show that this conception drives a wedge in the familiar dispute, between doxastic and conative accounts of intention, as to whether intending to act necessarily involves the belief that one will so act.