Well, the text does say "has", not "is". Now, English is not my native tongue, but would you consider sophistry to distinguish between having a talisman and being a talisman?
I believe that's a very subjective view. In this particular case, air from a place is an AC to that place ... unless that's an AC to something more specific (e.g. if it's the breath of a specific person). Otherwise, why would we read that ACs need to be stored carefully, lest they become ACs to different things? The text strongly suggests that as soon an AC to target X becomes (e.g. through intimate association) an AC to target Y, it stops being an AC to target X. Were it not the case, there would be no point carefully storing ACs: the more stuff something arcanely connects to, the better!
OR it could be an AC to the maker. But, as I see it, the key is OR. As soon as something "connects" more strongly to X than to Y, it becomes mystically part of X and stops being mystically part of Y.
I see what you're saying, but I would be cautious with that interpretation. These three quotes are why:
It doesn't say the item is an Arcane Connection to you. It also doesn't say retrieving the item takes away their Arcane Connection to you. Just if they steal it, they now have an an Arcane Connection to you. So how do you get the Arcane Connection away from them? This is very similar wording to that for the talisman. How do you read "has" here?
So an Arcane Connection is "something"/"a physical item" closely associated with the target. In the case of the magus, what is the something the magus has that is closely associated with his talisman? Remember, the magus always has this thing, even if the magus is naked. So the thing would be himself or a part of himself. What is that thing? If it his himself, then he is an Arcane Connection to his talisman and his familiar. If it is a part of himself like his hand, for example, and his hand gets cut off, there are issues with always having it and even then, it would seem the hand is an Arcane Connection to both the magus and his talisman.
So, while I see your point in the wording of "has" v. "is," I don't think the word choice implies what you say it does.
There is sometimes a tendency of "If it doesn't contradict the limits of (hermetic) magic, we can do it", and of trying to make any other idea possible to base hermetic magic.
While I understand the desire not to say "no", I think that it is important that sometimes, hermetic magic may be unable, at least in its present, base state, to do something.
It gives a small bone to Hedge Traditions.
It makes hermetic magic more real, in that it's not complete.
It gives something to aim for in trying to improve hermetic knowledge, if not for the players, then at least in the background (This is why I tend to first disallow effect based on new guidelines, and then give these to the players as effects of progress or integration, or allow them to create these by research)
It makes mysteries that expand your abilities (instead of just adding numbers) worthwhile and interesting. What is Glamour worth if you can make any of its more arcane uses with base Hermetic Magic?
Of course, this is a pure matter of taste
Simply put: What is the target, what is the Target?
The spell isn't cast at AC range. Therefore, both the Target and the target are the item.
As you rightly remark, if you used it on, say, a piece of Cloth, this wouldn't work, since you'd try to affect Herbam with Corpus, just like if you where trying to get information on someone through InHe.
Now, at AC range, the same spell would work on any material, since both target and Target would refer to the Corpus person at the other end of the connection.
My memory fails me, so I don't remember how this is done.
But I can still see how this could be possible.
My sorceress in Andorra has what she calls the Blood Maps. Parchments in which she writes the name of every grog and companion we have. Every 2 years, she takes a prickle of blood to each of them, and put it besides the name. Through an Intangible Tunnel, this allows her to use them as InIm proxy, talk to them using CrIm, or summon them through ReCo.
The parchment itself isn't the AC, the blood is.
Although this is a little more difficult, and you wouldn't be able to do this forever, a similar system could be used with books.
The OP was looking at Faerie Sight as a means towards the end of identifying Arcane Connections. There's a consensus here that Hermetic Magic can't grant the Faerie Sight virtue for a number of reasons, including hermetic limits on how sensory magic work (penetration, especially) and in general because Hermetic Magic doesn't work by granting arbitrary game packages like virtues.
That's not the same as saying Hermetic Magic can't identify arcane connections, which was the crux of the original question.
That's been the core tendency of Ars Magica since first edition. Come up with an idea for a spell, determine appropriate Form and Technique, and assign level. The guidelines are a much newer addition to the game and have always been, to my understanding, intended to facilitate the process of assigning Form, Technique, and level. They've never been intended to exclude other effects. I'd find Hermetic Magic and the game in general much less interesting if we were limited to working with variations of the core book guidelines.
There are many reasons that Hermetic Magic may be unable to do something.
Does the effect violate the limits of magic from the corebook?
Does the effect feel outside the general paradigm of Hermetic Magic, such a granting a game construct virtue rather than creating specific effects?
Is there an explicit rule somewhere else that's relevant, e.g., MuVi cannot be used on spontaneous magic?
Is there an implicit rule, such as Dream Magic is required to work with dreams, therefore Me alone is limited?
Is it difficult or impossible to assign Form/Technique to the effect, such as a spell of Luck?
Does the effect use R/D/T that are excessively different from known parameters? I'm comfortable with some nonstandard parameters, as per the corebook, such a Week for Moon, but you're not going to get the Performance duration without a breakthrough.
Does the effect somehow break the game or the setting but giving the caster unexpected power, in ways seemingly unanticipated by the authors of the rules?
If the answers to all these questions are no, then I say go ahead and assign a level to the effect.
Exactly in the same way I read it in the case of the talisman. As you pointed out, they are two sentences with very similar wording: "X has an arcane connection to Y".
I read them both as saying: "X has something, Z, that is an arcane connection to Y". Thus: "The new owner has the item, that is an arcane connection to you".
If you read them as saying: "X is an arcane connection to Y", you end up with "The new owner is an arcane connection to you" (so I can target you using the new owner as an AC). I confess that's an intriguing interpretation, with a nice mythic feel, but ... is it really what you mean?
Something like a True Name: intangible and, unlike a True Name, non transferable. True Ownership, if you will. Note that in the context you are quoting "physical item" is used to distinguish a concrete AC from the Hermetic Range -- I do not think it should be read as "every Arcane Connection need be a physical item", since familiars are not items, and True Names are non-physical.
But, ultimately, the point is this: I am not trying to defend my reading as the only possible interpretation. However, it is a viable interpretation that prevents a terrible problem: that of things being Arcane Connections to multiple targets -- which creates all sort of headaches when adjudicating magic, and is not really necessary to the game.
But using True Names to show Arcane Connections can be words like that would require True Names to be Arcane Connections. Where does it say they are? Same things with names of spirits in other cases. I can't find where it says someone who has a True Name has an Arcane Connection, just that they act "as if" or "act as" if or "serve as" if that someone has an Arcane Connection:
So
So, noting that True Names and the like are not actually Arcane Connections (so PeVi degradation doesn't work on them) and noting that the interpretation here would be the owner (X) of the talisman has something (Z) that is an Arcane Connection to the talisman (Y), it would seem like this something should be something physical, as it is with the item for Skinchanger.
I'm not saying what you're using is a bad choice, just that it really seems like the core rules have a case of one object being an Arcane Connection to two things. Whether that's a problem to solve or just something to be aware of can be decided by troupes.
Well, if that's the case, you have found another path to disproving:
since magi and familiars serve as an arcane connection to each other.
But, I think this is beyond the point. My point is that has is not is; if one has (rather than is) an Arcane Connection to an item, one can target the item with R:Arc magics, but one can't be used by someone else to target the item with R:Arc magics. This seems fairly straightforwards to me, to the point that I won't be able to add much by debating it further.
Yes, the rules state they "serve" as Arcane Connections to each other. But the rules also say they are Arcane Connections to each other. Arcane Connections do serve as Arcane Connections. So this does not disprove my statement at all.
Sure, but if someone else has that Arcane Connection, they can use it just like you. What is it you have? Again, an Arcane Connection is "something." What is that "something" that the naked magus has?
That would not be entirely clear, since it's not clear if the link is the arcane connection or the familiar is the arcane connection.
But that's beyond the point, as I said, and since I assume "serve as" is, for all practical purposes, the equivalent to "is" (which is the position the text seems to have - discounting your argument about True names) the discussion is academic, and frankly, I intend to pursue it no further. Incidentally, note that in the example you give, the corebook presents familiar-to-magus, magus-to-familiar, talisman-to-magus, but not magus-to-talisman. It's not conclusive proof, of course, that the magus isn't/doesn't serve as an arcane connection to his talisman ... but it's certainly some evidence.
I contend it's something intangible, a "link" to the talisman, that only the magus can use as an AC.
Ultimately, this is the concrete issue, regardless of all the "serve as vs. is" abstract discussion:
a) according to you, if I have the magus (his body? his corpse? part of it?) I can reach his talisman at R:Arc;
b) according to me I can't -- only the magus can.
Can you give any factual example ruling out what I am saying, in the corebook? What about other books?
I'd even add one more item to my list that I forgot about before:
Does the effect seem to require extensive knowledge of the supernatural realms other than Magic (i.e., Faerie, Infernal, Divine) and the magus lack appropriate ties?
All that said, I don't understand why people reject the idea of detecting ACs with InVi.
No limits or other rules, implicit or explicit, are violated.
R/D/T can be standard.
ACs are at least as much associated with the Magic realm as any other
The effect is common with Faerie Sight and doesn't break the game there.
Intellego is clearly the right Technique.
Vim is used to manipulate ACs using Creo and Perdo and generally "feels" appropriate for the form.
All I can gather is that some people - not necessarily you specifically - object to effects that aren't listed in printed guidelines somewhere. I disagree strongly with this perspective.
