A natural reply, however, is that there is another way to be  instrumentally coherent: namely, to abandon the intention to stay in  power.  Thus, a requirement of instrumental coherence as such should  take “wide-scope.” It should say: one is required to either revise one’s  intention to E, or revise one’s belief that one will E only if one  intends to M, or intend to M. (See especially Broome 1999 and Wallace  2006.  For earlier defenses of the wide-scope view, see Hill 1973 and  Darwall 1983.)  So even if “one is rationally required” is taken to  imply “one ought,” all that follows is that one ought to either revise  the intention to stay in power, or revise the belief that one will do so  only if one intends to kill one’s rival, or intend to kill one’s rival.   It does not follow that one ought to intend to kill one’s rival.