Chris Goodwin

You make excellent points, as always, Doc, and I do _not_ claim that your concerns are invalid.
 
 
I _do_ maintain, however, that these concerns are not unique for shapeshift-as-special-effect.
 
I have seen very, _very_ few fire-themed characters who have gone out of their way to purchase a power that specifically lets them start fires, controlled or otherwise, of even light a cigarette.  I have seen only _one_ in forty years that bought Change Environment to be able to use his fire powers to use himself as a sort of torch-- lighting up dark areas.
 
Now I _have_ seen GMs that allow this (for the most part, I am one of them.  Not always, but usually).  I have let "Chick with ice powers" use her powers to lower another character's core temperature enough to slow their "rate of death" while being transported for medical care.  This was _nowhere_ on the character sheet, but I allowed it.
 
I have _also_ seen GMs who flat-out _won't_ allow it: You didn't build it; you didn't buy it; you can't do it.  Honestly, I have seen a massive upswing in this sort of GM since the addition of the "Power tricks" Skill (I was one of the opponents of that, because I kept thinking "a lot of people are going to get shafted on really novel ideas because they didn't buy this Skill, even though it's something we used to just _let_ people do").
 
And there are camps everywhere in between:  Do you have Power Skill?  Okay, then I will let you try this.
 
Or (with or without Power Skill): okay, you can do it this time, but I want you to put at least one EP per session toward buying a more specifically-tailored power to do it if you ever want to do it again.
 
All those things.  I'm willing to be you have, too.
 
They are _all_ completely correct.  Some are more permissive; some more exclusionist; some more compromise-oriented (I can't say "compromising" with a straight face anymore)-- you know you have made a perfect compromise when everyone is equally unhappy.     But they are all correct.  It's up to the sort of game you want to run.
 
 
 
 
So what sort of GM are you?  Can Fire Guy light a cigar?  Can The Electrocutioner use his abilities as an ersatz defibrillator?  Can what-was-her-name-with-the-alien-choker-that-gave-her-sonic-powers use her super scream to match some sort of resonance pattern and solve a unique puzzle?  Can Spiderman use his webbing to make a parachute and jump from a plane?
 
Doesn't matter if you need power skill or not, or if you allow it every time or not-- it's a matter of if you _would_ allow, at least _once_, under ridiculously extenuating circumstances-- is there a set of circumstances under which you see yourself allowing it?  Or is it a straight up "no?"  You didn't buy it; you don't have it.
 
Odds are you have "yes-ed" at least once to something and you have "no-ed" at least once to something similar.
 
And none of these involve shape shifting.  You still have to make a judgement call; you still have to deal with players being creative--  I don't say "sneaky" or "sly" because I don't think the majority of it is intentionally trying to "get something for free;"  I suspect the bulk of it is creative people trying to find a solution with the tools they have at hand.  But because of that, you are going to have to make these judgment calls _all the time_.  That's why GM is a vital role:  you are not just "the guy who knows the rules best" or "the guy who tells cool stories," but also the guy who has to decide how far is too far; what's plausible and what isn't-- and more importantly, to what degree, how often, and why.  Adding a special power specifically to be seen / heard / felt /tasted / smelled as a certain thing is _not_ going to change that, particularly when there are _still_ ways to demonstrate that this shape shift is _not_ actually a perfect "turned into something."
 
I am going to assume that changing shapes doesn't come up in every single campaign you're involved in.  Are those campaigns without shapeshifting completely free of the GM making judgment calls on the actions or suggestions of clever players?
 
 
 
 
What chance does the research time at Gamma Research Tech have to identify that the Hulk is actually Bruce Banner?   I think you may have switched gears here and moved directly to Multiform, in which case there is _zero_ chance, unless the observer is aware quite specifically that the good Captain has these two specific forms.  The Multiform rules specifically state that you become something / someone else.  You don't look / taste / sound / feel / smell like someone or something else; you actually _are_ something else.  Much like my chance to determine that an actual dog is not an actual dog is _zero_ because an actual dog _is_ an _actual dog_.  Multiform does that.
 
But to cover all the bases-- modern shape shift does _not_ do that.  So your odds are going to depend on what your PER modifiers are, what the simulated shape shift penalty modifiers are, and what senses you are using to detect and if they have bought an appropriate simulated shape shift to deceive that sense-- or at least apply some penalties to it.  Or roll a 3 on a PER check with pretty much _any_ sense.  Whatever.
 
 
And third base (yay!  I'm boobies!     )  
 
If you're doing it old-school, unless you bought Disguise or Stealth or Concealment or even-- perhaps with a penalty-- Acting, well....   You are going to be a sparrow, but you are going to be an obvious "what the hell is wrong with that sparrow?!" kind of sparrow.  
 
Look at it this way:  I am using Flight and I want to be a sparrow.  Poof!  I'm a sparrow.  PER checks to find me are unchanged from when I was a person.  
 
I am using Shrinking and I want to be a sparrow.  PER checks are modified by my Shrinking.  I can't fly.
 
Wait-- I am using Flight and Shrinking, and I want to be a sparrow.  I am now flying around, with PER checks against me modified by my shrinking, but if I _am_ spotted, there's going to be "something not quite right here."  So I add Disguise (the way we used to build the Mystique clones, and Chameleon clones, way back when-- or now, if you're me) and maybe Acting?  maybe just a KS: habits of sparrows."  Actually, I like that a lot.  Now I've got some skill rolls to, and the odds are good I am going to be a very convincing "just another sparrow."
 
_Again_---  the problem comes from the ideas that grow from over-building.  Just because my special effect for flying is turning into a bird (sorry; I've type 'sparrow' too many times now), that's all it is:  the special effect for flying.  It doesn't _automatically_ give me other abilities that _I don't have_.  (presumably, sparrows do something other than fly and crap on things.)
 
 
 
Using sparrow one more time:  I look like I'm flying.  if you're close enough, I probably _sound_ like I'm flying-- little floopity wing-beats and my heart thumping painfully in my chest while I gasp "Holy *$$%! don't look down!  don't look down!!"  My altitude and my flight speed can be measured.  I...  taste like I am flying?  I probably feel like I am flying, since you'd have to reach really high in order to actually touch me.  How does Superman taste when he's flying?  Or smell?  Sight and possibly sound; that about covers it.  Or if either of us should stop flying directly overhead, you could feel us crash down on top of you (in which case, you better hope it's the sparrow     )
 
Let's stop there, because I am pretty certain you already know the answer to this anyway, and while we might be having a lot of fun picking it apart, i'm sure we've already alienated the audience, so we'll just move on and hope they forgive us.  
 
 
 
If Antman is trapped in a cage, can Antman escape by becoming the gigantic version of himself he was in that movie?  (who knew ants got so damned BIG?!)
 
 
 
Or does the cage prevent that happening?
 
_That's_ the question.  That is _the_ question.  You are focusing on the special effect and _not_ the mechanic.  if being a different shape makes it harder to visualize, apply the mechanics to something else more comfortable, or just look at the mechanics themselves:
 
If someone who is using Shrinking is trapped in a cage, can they escape it by using Growth?
 
However you answer _that_ question, that's the answer to the situation every single time, no matter what the SFX are.
 
 
 
 
Oh yes; I totally get that.  And I am perfectly happy to discuss it with you at whatever length you might want, so long as you are willing to accept my time constraints.  
 
As always, it's been a pleasure, Sir.   
 

 
 

I've got the minimum cost corrected...I could swear that it was intentionally removed before, but can't for the life of me find out when/why.
 
The abbreviations are all there, but are not considered Writers' Guidelines compliant so will not display if you have strict writers guidelines compliance checked off under the app prefs.

The idea is that you set a basic Active Point level, and that powers higher than that have to take a lower Real Point limit at a rate of -1 Real Point per +1 Active Point.  It doesn't change how Limitations apply, so you'd have to reduce the Real Cost with whatever Limitations against the Active Points are necessary.  
 
For example:  a GM sets a 50 Active Point target for their game.  A power could have 60 Active Points, but a max of 40 Real Points; 75 Active Points with a max of 25 Real Points; or any combination.  
 
The GM could of course set limits so that ridiculous values aren't reached; the GM in the above example might set an absolute max of 80 Active Points with required Limitations to reduce that power down to 20 Real Points or lower.  
 

It would kind of suck to use your mega blast first thing, and for the Activation Roll (if applicable) to fail... or for it to Stun the target but not KO him... or to use it on an illusion... or to roll an 18 on your to hit roll.
 
I've played in a few games recently without Active Point limits at all, and we didn't go overboard.  I think there might have been a couple of powerful abilities that weren't game breaking.  This is intended to be a way for characters to occasionally pack a punch without laying waste.  
 
I'm willing to take a look at it in play to see what happens.
 
 

As an alternative, instead of Drain BODY, you could do it with a Killing Attack, and similarly Aid the END Reserve.  The Killing Attack doesn't have to mess with Delayed Return Rate or halving its effect against Defensive Characteristics.
 
Replacing the Drain BODY 3d6 with an RKA 1 1/2d6, even switching it to AVAD (Power Defense) and Does BODY, drops that portion of it to 125 Active, and with the No Range, Concentrate (1/2 DCV throughout, -1/2), and Only Against Helpless Targets (-1) Limitations, it comes to 42 Real.  

I ran a campaign years ago in which the heroes all had an "ultimate" power, not unlike various video game characters.  These were high active point powers, but had so many limitations that the Real cost was fairly low (mostly stuff like Burnout, lots of Extra END, various Side Effects, etc.).  Most of these powers were purchased on their own, outside any power framework.  Mostly it worked okay, because the players had a sense of dramatic story-telling and only used their ultimate power when the chips were down and it was the only way to turn the tide of battle.  But there were a couple of times that the players figured that they could get away with using their ultimate power just for the sake of expediency, knowing it would probably be ready to use again when they really needed it, so it can be abusive with players with a tendency to metagame.
 
Anyway, I think it is a neat idea, but either the GM needs to be careful, or you need to be able to trust your players not to abuse it.

The idea is that you set a basic Active Point level, and that powers higher than that have to take a lower Real Point limit at a rate of -1 Real Point per +1 Active Point.  It doesn't change how Limitations apply, so you'd have to reduce the Real Cost with whatever Limitations against the Active Points are necessary.  
 
For example:  a GM sets a 50 Active Point target for their game.  A power could have 60 Active Points, but a max of 40 Real Points; 75 Active Points with a max of 25 Real Points; or any combination.  
 
The GM could of course set limits so that ridiculous values aren't reached; the GM in the above example might set an absolute max of 80 Active Points with required Limitations to reduce that power down to 20 Real Points or lower.  
 

The idea is that you set a basic Active Point level, and that powers higher than that have to take a lower Real Point limit at a rate of -1 Real Point per +1 Active Point.  It doesn't change how Limitations apply, so you'd have to reduce the Real Cost with whatever Limitations against the Active Points are necessary.  
 
For example:  a GM sets a 50 Active Point target for their game.  A power could have 60 Active Points, but a max of 40 Real Points; 75 Active Points with a max of 25 Real Points; or any combination.  
 
The GM could of course set limits so that ridiculous values aren't reached; the GM in the above example might set an absolute max of 80 Active Points with required Limitations to reduce that power down to 20 Real Points or lower.  
 

The idea is that you set a basic Active Point level, and that powers higher than that have to take a lower Real Point limit at a rate of -1 Real Point per +1 Active Point.  It doesn't change how Limitations apply, so you'd have to reduce the Real Cost with whatever Limitations against the Active Points are necessary.  
 
For example:  a GM sets a 50 Active Point target for their game.  A power could have 60 Active Points, but a max of 40 Real Points; 75 Active Points with a max of 25 Real Points; or any combination.  
 
The GM could of course set limits so that ridiculous values aren't reached; the GM in the above example might set an absolute max of 80 Active Points with required Limitations to reduce that power down to 20 Real Points or lower.  
 

That was not the rule in 3rd edition, so I decided to find out where it came from.  Not in 4th either; in 5th non-revised, acceleration and deceleration are listed in the actions table as a 0 Phase action.  5er is where the verbiage also in 6th edition first appeared.  
 
So the reason no one enforces the rule is that it really wasn't a rule when most of us started playing.  And it was also so not-a-rule that I had a hard time getting it even when the text was quoted to me.  
 
In my opinion: enforcing the rule as written in most combats would make the game nearly impossible to actually play.  I can see instances where it might be useful; with vehicles, for instance, but not for set-piece combat scenes.

Actual play differs from the letter of the rules, universally enough that I'm a little surprised that the letter of the rules actually say what they do.  But indeed they do.  And the common sense rules you quoted above are exactly what I was looking for, thinking they were already in 6e. 
 
 
Edit to add:  That would be a correct interpretation of the rules as written.  But rules as interpreted and game as played all follow the common sense rule.
 
When I say this, I mean it as literally as the word "literally" literally means.  No one enforces the letter of these particular rules here.  The word "typically" that I bolded above ought to really read "universally" instead.  
 
I think the book doesn't suggest it because everyone already does it, as a matter of common sense.  This really ought to be changed, in fact, to match practical use at the game table.  

Deceleration is involved, yes, but it's not the crux. I know how a character declares his intent to decelerate (the character takes the Zero Phase Action remove velocity), and I know how a character actually decelerates (typically by shedding velocity at the rate of 5m per 1m traveled). My confusion is still centers on this statement: A character "may not deactivate the Movement Power until he decelerates to 0m normally or through some outside means" (E61 156 and E62 25). (This, by the way, I think makes turning off the Running technically impossible while velocity remains.)
 
Thank you, Chris, for suggesting Ultimate Speedster. (I had it on my shelf. I've acquired a lot of Hero Games material over the years but only rarely have gotten to play and have never played *6E*.) That book on Common Sense Acceleration and Deceleration says
 
…which is fine, I guess. It still surprises me, though, that the 6E rules, given their depth, never actually come out and say what happens normally in this situation.
 
Maybe my misunderstanding is more fundamental. Let me back up. My read is that because a character can only take a Zero Phase Action to pick add velocity or remove velocity once per Phase, a character that picks add velocity then takes a Full Move—if he moves at all—will end his Phase with some velocity if he doesn't first pick a destination:
 
Yes, the GM could issue a blanket ruling otherwise, but 6E doesn't suggest that (and it suggests a lot!). Really, my read is that the character specifically picked add velocity because the character didn't have a destination and wanted to travel meter by meter using Running (or Swimming or Tunneling or Flight with No Turn Mode) so as to adjust his route on the fly. Is that correct?
 
If that's a correct conclusion, then to me that sounds like the game kind of neatly simulating what I think many might view as "normal" travel—even down to, next Phase, having to take a Zero Phase Action to reduce velocity then a Half Move to travel some distance to decelerate before taking an Attack Action because of something that was spotted last Phase. That's complicated, but I'm okay with complicated.
 
If it's an incorrect conclusion, what are the rules saying? For instance, is all movement supposed to be plotted all the time?
 
Massey, I just checked the Fifth Edition core rulebook, and, you're correct, it does not say that a character "may not deactivate the Movement Power until he decelerates to 0m normally or through some outside means." However, Ultimate Speedster says that twice (27 and 205). And, really, I want to make sense of the rules so I do know the game I'm playing. I'm trying to educate myself on how to play this game so that the people I sit down at the table with—who don't know the game's community, who don't know the game's history, who don't know the game's norms—can look at the same book I'm looking at and see how I reached the conclusions that I did.
 

Chris has, as he is known to do, given you some really solid advice on how to interpret that particular rule.  Frankly, his advice is probably better than my "ignore the heck out of that rule because that's what's confusing you." 
 
What he said-- just assume that the character began decelerating during his previous movement-- is pretty much how it works out in play anyway.  Here is the other option:
 
Everything is precisely mapped.  The Player has Slick moving at X meters per Phase.  The Player wants Slick to stop at a certain hex.  So now the Player must hold up the game while he breaks out the tape measure or starts counting hexes, then does some math, figuring he can drop "x" amount of velocity by moving "y" meters, and he wants to arrive at momentum 0 in hex T, and starts doing some math--- and the game is on pause while the player does all this  (I have no idea how old you are or how you got into RPGs, but if you remember the tactical war games they grew out of, you remember how tedious and time-consuming this can get-- _especially_ if it's not your turn.    ).  Finally, having arrived at the idea set up-- one which will preserve his momentum for as long as possible, and institute maximum braking at the last possible instant, he makes that first move.
 
Then the next guy has a Phase, and he does the same thing.  Third guy things "Hey; I waited for them!  I didn't even _want_ to move, but now I just want to show them how irritating that was!" and he initiates his own algebra test to change his position.
 
No one (except possibly Scott, who prefers the old war games and enjoys that tactical side of HERO a lot of people shy away from) plays like that.  Why?  Because it's just as practical to assume that the character has already made all these determinations for himself either prior to moving or on the fly while he was moving.   In play (and seriously: you can test this if you like), the end result of either method is _identical_: you arrive at point T at Phase P, just like you planned.  The only genuine difference is for obscenely high speeds (usually vehicles, honestly; flying ones) Slick might have that phase just before he stops at slightly less than top speed, which effects only the movement modifiers for his CV, and then by what-- ?  One?  Maybe?  _Possibly 2_?
 
Don't get me wrong, now: if that level of modeling appeals to you, then by all means _do_ it!  The whole purpose of this game (or any other, really) is to have fun, so do it the way that provides you with the most entertainment possible.   No one here is going to judge you for how you play your game.
 
If it helps, then consider this:
 
Turning a Power "on" and "off" can also refer to the Endurance expended _using_ that Power: consider that the line that is troubling you _might_ be interpreted as "The character will spend the END for his movement power so long as he is moving," or "until his velocity is 0."
 
As for concern about having to wait until your "Zero Phase" comes around again-- "It's Phase 0; I turn off my movement power since I'm not moving now" isn't inherently any different from "Since I stopped moving last Phase after my half-move, I'll go ahead and turn that movement power off."  I mean, if you weren't moving, you weren't burning END anyway, so what's the harm in declaring that's how it goes down? Or you can accept that on Zero Phase, you can declare "My power is being turned off, and will be off as soon as I stop moving."
 
Either way, looking at it from the END expenditure point of view might help you wrestle the idea a little better.
 
 
 
 
 
First: it is _not_ an incorrect conclusion.  And, if it helps, it also says--- granted, 6e says it less than other editions, but it does say it, and it says it several different ways-- that it is _your_ game, and you are free to use or not use any rules you want, and you are completely correct in doing so.  I understand wanting to do everything "by the books."  Seriously:  I get it. I, too, am attracted to the idea that I might possible by able to master seven books and a thousand pages and have all that at my fingertips.  Problematically, that's not going to happen (not because it isn't possible, but because I'm much happier with an older edition.  That's just me, though).  The biggest reason it's not going to happen is because of the optional rules.  It's not possible to use all of them because some of them will contradict other optional rules.  Once you get comfortable with the idea that "I'm not going to be able to use every single rule," it becomes much easier to accept "and I don't want to use this rule, either."  Just as an example  (Guys: this is not open for discussion; I am posting an example, okay?), were I to play 6e, there would be a Comeliness characteristic added to every character sheet and "Striking Appearance" would be highlighted with the biggest, blackest Sharpie I could find.  But again: that's just me.  Some people are happy using PRE to simulate Charisma; I am not.  No big deal: no one is going to crucify me over it, and I don't care that I'm the only one doing it.
 
See?
 
Anyway, to get back on track here, consider reading the line that troubles you as "the character must pay END for the movement power until he is not moving."   Consider that "turning it off" is _separate_ from not using it.  Frankly, "Zero Phase Action" in itself can cause some confusion, particularly since later rules sets establish that there is a set point in the Phase for them: you must do these before doing anything else."  You and I know that's not true.  You can drop something as a Zero Phase Action, but be honest:  how many things-- especially as a kid-- did you ever drop mid-run?  How many on accident?  How many on purpose?  Since we have proven that it's entirely real-world possible to do a Zero Phase Action in the middle of some other non-Zero action, why insist that they have to be done first?   (Yes; I understand that this is much easier and more in keeping with the wargaming roots of Champions / HERO System, but let's be honest:  it's not a war game anymore.  It _can_ be, but it isn't.  And I get that it's to keep players from "cheating" or "Changing their minds."  Two things there: everyone commits to something and changes their minds.  Not everything, but there's been something where you had to change your plan on the fly.  Second: I don't see the point in playing with people I can't trust to be honest.)  Consider even that "My Power will turn off at the end of this next half-move is a legitimate Zero Phase Action.  And consider that the troublesome line in the rules is referring to turning the power off in terms of END expenditure.
 
Any of those should help you get a grip on it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A couple of notes:
 
Most of the Ultimates are dedicated to a particular schtick, and thus a particular "main power" from which inspiration is drawn for other powers that could be built with shared special effects of this "main power."  Consider also that a lot of the rules-specific text, particularly in regard to that "main power," is pulled directly from a core rule book.   Lastly, consider that the guy who wrote the rules and believed that this line was clear and self-explanatory also co-wrote the Ultimate Speedster.  I have no doubt that he simply didn't realize that this line is not as clear as he thought it was, and so it remained in every book since the line was first printed.
 
 
Just a thought, but again- if it's anything that will help you, feel free to mull it over.
 
 
Have fun.  I've got to root through my desktop to find something for Scott.
 
 
Later!
 
 
 

Popped an edit in my quote - I read in that your issue was not just "someone with a different opinion".  There is no one on these Boards who is more open to differing opinions than you are - whether you agree or not, you have always respected the other viewpoint, and you deserve no less from anyone whose opinions differ from yours.

Up front:  
 
I am _not_ calling you wrong; I want you especially, and everyone else who might still be following along (we're almost at page 3, when it just becomes a philosophy discussion-- and where I try to bow out, because by page 4, it's a shouting match ) to understand that you are _not_ wrong when you say :
 
3 separate groups: bending light, being transparent, or simply being unnoticed.
 
You're not wrong.
 
 
I want to raise the point, however, that the absolute ultimate in-game mechanical effect of "invisibility" (which I am sorely tempted to rename "unnoticed" ) is that no one knows you were / are still here / there.  You can stand in the corner at any board meeting and no one will know you are there.  You walk straight up to the villain and poke him directly in the Stun and he will do nothing to defend himself (the first time) because he doesn't know you're there.
 
Side effects of no one knowing you're there include no one remembering you were there and you officially have the most terrifying of all evil twins, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
 
I would like to point out that 2 of the 3 three groups to which you referred are by themselves neither Invisibility nor necessary mechanical components of it, but are in fact _special effects_ of / justifications for being invisible.  For example, should a person be able to bend light around himself in such a way that he is edited out of your visual perception, you won't notice he's there, and since you don't notice he's there, you won't remember him being there.  If you are able to become completely transparent, well then you really don't need to bend light at all: people just aren't going see you because they can look right through you.  (and of course, if you can bend light, you can dress like a flamenco dancer and still not be seen).   
 
That leaves "being unnoticed."  Well, that right there-- _that_ is the absolute heart of Invisibility.  No matter how you achieve the result, the result you are after is "no one notices me."  I put forward the idea that-- pedantry and semantics and etymology aside, _within the game mechanics_, "being unnoticeable" is the _single_ definition of Invisible.   How you achieve the state of being unnoticeable is pure SFX for your build.
 
Maybe you bend light.  Maybe you (and your clothes) become perfectly transparent.  Maybe you radiate a constant mental command "you can't see me," causing the target's mind to edit you out of the target's perception and memories of you.
 
I think, at this point, we are all agreed that this is valid (at least this time.  When I dusted off Fade a couple of lifetimes ago, it didn't go so well).
 
So we have the power: Invisibility and the SFX "constant mental command."
 
Now to the rest of the build-- what are the Modifiers-- the Advantages and Limitations?  Which ones are mandated because of the SFX? 
 
Well, the Power rules _require_ "Fringe Effect," which you may want for your character.  But here's a nifty thing that, in today's ever-more-specific rules set you'd have to discuss with your GM, you might consider:  Decide that _your_ Fringe Effect doesn't work with a PER roll, but perhaps an EGO Roll!  You could do this to simulate that those unaffected have "some quality of mind" or "some quality of will power" that doesn't allow you to fully-dominate their subconscious, and their strength of will fights and does not edit you completely, hoping that your conscious mind will pick up on the attack, etc, etc, etc.
Or you could make it an INT roll: you are so self-aware that you realize that _something_ isn't right; something is playing with your mind, and the source of it-- right there!  I swear I saw something!  No; There!   You see where that's going; I'm certain.
 
Of course, the power description also gives you the option to buy off the fringe effect completely; you are free to do that.  Wait-- you've decided that this is a mental power, and that means---
 
 
Nothing.  It doesn't mean a stinkin' thing.  It means you have decided on the special effects for your Invisibility; that's what it means.  You can leave the Fringe Effect based on a PER roll; that is the default.  Let's remember that the power is _not_ "affects light so that when the light is perceived you aren't there," and it is _not_ "the light passes right through me so that there is no image of me transmitted to the senses," and that the power is not "my chameleon abilities are so refined that every cell of my body projects an image of that which is behind me."  The power is "I am unnoticeable."  How you arrive there does _not_ change that, _NOR_ does it mandate _anything_ that you don't want to include in the build.
 
For example: You _could_ use an EGO roll to detect the Fringe Effect.  You don't have to.  You don't even have to have a Fringe.
 
You _could_ allow characters with higher EGO scores or Mental Defense to have some bonus-- some additional chance to detect you.  But never, _ever_ forget that no matter _what_ you picked for your special effect, you are _not_ mandated to choose certain modifiers, _ever_.  If you decided to take a custom Limitation: characters with EGO 15+ / EGO Defense have a +x to their PER roll to notice you, it's because that's how you _want_ the power to work.  It is _not_, and no matter how much you hear to the contrary, it is _never_ mandatory to take certain limitations because "your SFX mandates"-- that's nonsense being spouted by someone who might really believe he understands the difference between mechanics and SFX-- someone who may well have made great strides toward that very understanding, even!-- but as long as he believes that a particular SFX _mandates_ anything, he hasn't gotten there yet.  Either that, or he's reading more into the rules that was ever there.
 
It is absolutely true that your SFX will open up interesting justifications for any modifiers that you may choose, particularly if you a very specific idea of how the power works, but no SFX will _ever_-- both by the source material and by the rules themselves-- _mandate_ anything you don't want.  You bought a 6d6 Energy Blast, AoE: Radius, Fireball?  It will very much work underwater and in outer space unless _you_ decide it doesn't.  "But there's no oxygen in outer space, so it can't work ther--"
"This flame is my righteous and glorious fury.  The flames you see are merely mirrors of my incredible passion.  This fire needs no oxygen!"
 
Don't let someone tell you that "justifiable equals mandate."  That just makes it so much harder for anyone following along to learn to separate mechanics from SFX.
 
 
 

Moi?!  🤯
 
Perish the thought!
 
 

 
 
 
 

With every bit of respect I am capable of offering:
 
Oh, no....    I'm not getting suckered into that one again!   
 
 
To explain:  some time ago, I participated in a discussion on the same topic and was shouted down as being "too stingy" and "too liberal," and my favorite, "wrong" because if it's the mental command "ignore me!" then it should be mind control, period, and all else was wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
(you may have noticed that I _never_ post builds, _ever_.   It's the history of Bash Behavior from way back when that guarantees I never will.)  I don't expect anything I come up with in response to any question or to my own needs to be perfect, or to even be what someone else is looking for; really I don't.  But I am _not_ going to put work into something just to have it insulted out of hat without any actual discussion as to why.  Yeah, it's not so bad these days as it once was, but still-- lesson learned. 
 
 
Then more recently I screwed up and alluded to a villain I dusted off whose invisibility is the continuous mental command "forget me" and got a few waves of "no; that's not inviso" and "no; you can't do that."  (let's be fair:  it's my game.  I can set the stinking table on fire if I want to, right?    )   Lesson remembered.
 
 
So let me offer this:
 
Keep in mind that defining it as a mental command means, as you point out, that it won't work against non-sentient recording instruments, but that it _will_ work equally as well against the character with Damage Reduction: EGO-based attacks and an EGO of 80  as it does against Captain Orange Patriot with his susceptibility to any thought-based power and his raw EGO of 6.
 
In short: there's undeniably some disadvantage in there, but it's accompanied by some considerable advantages as well-- at least in terms of the SFX / description of the power.
 
 

Sorry,  Chris.
 
I wanted to Like that, but apparently I have overreacted again today...
 

 
 

Being curious, I just checked 3rd edition Champions, and it (edit) doesn't (/edit) say it in there.  Specifically, 3rd edition advises players to say whether they're maintaining velocity or not at the end of their Phase, and that it could matter for a character switching to Noncombat movement.  
 
That aside: while it's "technically" correct that it takes a Zero Phase action to activate or deactivate a Movement Power (Running, Flight, etc.), and while it's also "technically" correct that a character has to accelerate at the beginning and decelerate at the end... in practice, you'll never, ever be in a game where anyone even bothers with that.  "I move from here to there" is shorthand for all of that.  
 
If you have 30m of movement, then during your Phase, you can move 30m.  Despite any calculations for acceleration or deceleration.  
 
@Hey I Can Chan  I'll strongly advise common sense.  Assume that a moving character in combat is not keeping their velocity unless they specify, or unless context clues indicate otherwise.  A chase scene, or running along with traffic on a road, or attempting a Move By or Move Through, or leaving combat, or movement outside of combat time, might indicate the moving character is maintaining their velocity.  When in doubt, ask.  
 
 
Here's the part that I keep tripping myself up on.  This will almost never be the case, unless Slick's player specifies that they're maintaining velocity at the end of their Phase.  Or unless there's some context that indicates otherwise, but that context will almost always be obvious from what's going on in play.  

Ah; yes.  I see what youre asking now.  My appologies for misunderstanding.
 
You are inquiring, I believe,about decellrating; correct?  If so, then there are rules for deceleration and acelleration.  It is assumed that you will drop to velocity zero before you turn off your running, or at leasr to velocity 12m, which is non-super running speed.
 
You can, of course, opt to turn off a power while moving at speed, but you will enter the movement type equivalent of freefall.  Not Terri le if you are flying or swimming, but pretty rough on the face if you are running.     
 
 

I probably should have added this:
 
By and large, I ignore the decel rules for runners.  I do _not_ ignore them ror "Flight, only when touching a surface."  After all, thats nit the running mechanic (though it is very similar).  Primarily, I sont mind giving that little edge to the guy who bought the full-priced version of the power, and thw source material (or at least the flash TV show and thr Lego Flash cartoon my kids downloaded) supports the ideas that super-runners stop on a dime and take off like humming birds.
 
 

I believe that sentence is a new addition to the 6th edition rules.  I don't recall anything like that in previous versions of the rules.  Understand that the guy who wrote the 6th edition rules (Steve Long) is a lawyer, and sometimes his lawyer tendencies get the better of him.  I think this is one of those times.
 
There's a difference between the Rules As Written, and the Game As Played.  I've played in a lot of Hero games over the decades, and I don't think I've ever once seen this come up.  The only time this might be an issue is with noncombat movement, in regular movement it shouldn't be an issue.  Also remember that there's nothing saying you can't slow down again during your initial movement, and that's probably what characters should be considered as doing during the game.  It keeps it simpler that way.
 
Captain Speedster has 50 meters of Running.  On Segment 2, he begins moving towards the Mad Scientist and his Doomsday Device.  The Mad Scientist is exactly 50 meters away.  On Segment 2, Captain Speedster accelerates up to 50 meters per phase of velocity.  He travels 10 meters while building up to speed.  He travels forward 50 meters and is now standing next to Mad Scientist.  He can choose to retain that 50 meters of velocity (in which case he'll have to slow down next phase), or he can simply say that over the last 10 meters of movement, he was reducing his velocity.  So the first 10 meters he speeds up, then he covers 30 meters at full speed, and the last 10 meters he slows down.  He is now standing next to the Mad Scientist at a velocity of zero.
 
For normal everyday interactions, that's probably how you should handle it.  It's a lot easier.  Maybe you'd want to handle vehicles differently, or large noncombat multiples.  But just for everyday combat movement, you don't want to give yourself headaches.

This is such an edge case scenario that it's not likely to come up until you're a lot more comfortable with the bulk of the rules.  And if it does come up before then, it's likely you'll have a lot more context from the current situation that you'll still be able to make a ruling.  
 
As I said on the Discord, the mantra is usually common sense, dramatic sense, and special effects.  And an optional fourth part: let the dice decide.  You can certainly let the player make a DEX Roll, and determine what happens from that.  (Dirty little GM secret: a lot of times "make a ___ roll" is shorthand for, if the player rolls really well or really poorly it's obvious as to what happens, and sometimes the act of them rolling gives you that extra time to figure out what happens if it's close.)  
 
See also The Ultimate Speedster.

Yeah....
 
That....    That's one of those moments where clean, plain, simple language still manages to pile up into lawyerspeak: that is to say, the inclusion of something that would seem completely unnecessary, which leads to complicating something that should be extremely simple.
 
So, what that says:
 
The character may not stop Running until he stops running.
The character may not stop Flight until he stops flying.
The character may not stop Swimming until he stops swimming.
 
More simply: you can't turn off a Power and still be using it.  Now what I just say sounds a little goofy, but the more clearly-stated version of that is "you can't use a power that is turned off," and that's not something anyone would find necessary to say, in light of all the other discussion of turning powers off and on.
 
So:  If you're running at 100kph, you can't decide to "turn off your running."   
 
For I what it's worth, I find that rule to be a violation of the spirit of the HERO system anyway.  If some part of my harebrained scheme to take out the villain involves "I accelerate to 200kph, turn off my running, stumble and roll along the pavement in great agony until my momentum is spent," then I should be allowed to do that.  No sane person would want to, but the insane should be allowed to (well, the sane, too; I just don't see it coming up as often).
 
Now here's the part of that which saw the most discussion at my own tables:
 
 
I have Flight, 10."  Given the current height at which I am flying, I can fall faster at terminal velocity than I can with Flight.  While dropping onto this strange new planet with my jump pack, the eggheads figure it's best for me to fly to a particular altitude directly over the beacon and _cut the pack_ for a full thirty seconds.   Then fire up the pack, full open to slow myself.  When the G-meter drops to .5, cut the pack again for another twenty seconds; repeat...."
 
I haven't landed, but I most certainly stopped using Flight-- several times.   The argument can be made that I'm not flying; I'm falling.  So what's slowing me down?  Is the rocket pack some sort of platform on which I've landed and left and landed and left?  Is it "Gliding" like a parachute?
 
A much more technical argument can be made that the entire process, from drop to planetary touchdown, is "the entire flight."  Problematically, we play that game turn by turn and even phase by phase.  How much END / Fuel Charge should I pay for the five turns it was "off" the first time?  Of the full twenty segments I wasn't using it the next time it was off the second time?
 
 
Going less sciencey:
 
"It's no good; I'm not going to make it; too much blood....   tired...    "  Captain Guywitwingz knows his time has come, yet he keeps pushing.  There must be something-- _something_-- one last way to serve his teammates, to thwart the enemy.  Then he sees the child, far below.  His Guywitwingz Vision-- part and universal parcel of the Guywitwingz package he received via that origin he had so many years ago recently, have allowed him to find the child.  He has escaped the Nazis, and is running for his life, but one of them-- one of them is about to stumble across the child's hiding spot!  "I can't.... I can't..."  He knows he doesn't have the END to fly down to the child, grab the child, and fly away.  What to do?!  The world is black, spinning.....   If only he could just stop flying and fall out of the sky, his impressive Guywitwingz physique would sure drop the Nazi in his tracks.    No...  the world just doesn't work that way....   The good captain knows that it's too late now....  without the power to fly down to the ground, he is going to become another of the thousands of floating dead, stuck here in the sky...   He couldn't even wish to be his own headstone for all eternity, because he was either going to be eaten, rot away, or get hit by a plane, eventually.....
 
 
That rule, at our table, received the ignominious Black Highlighter Award, and has not been uttered aloud since the Ceremony of Deserved Desecration.
 
It's your game, no matter what, but I would highly encourage you ignore that rule as well, and let, in the oft-oft-oft repeated words of 6e, "let common sense and dramatic sense" be the judge of when a character can or cannot turn off a power.  It certainly seems more right than a rule that says "your common sense and dramatic sense are utter crap; do this instead."
 

 
 

Oh, I meant, look who you're asking.