Not impossible - not by a long shot. That would be the very definition of Target: Part. Or ReTe instead of ReCo.
The requisite rules not contradict my interpretation at all. In fact, they support it! By including a passage where requisites are specifically waived when they're incidental to the spell's main effect:
Does teleporting with your shirt on significantly increasing the power to be able to teleport in the first place...? I argue no, it doesn't . Therefore, the requisites would be waived
You could argue differently. And we could both meet half way and say anything above a certain weight (e.g. designed to excludefull harness, weapons, and supplies for a week) requires appropriate requisites, magnitudes or whatever else you feel is right.
I was speaking in flowery terms, such as wizardly. I'm well ware that there are examples, I'd like to see a greater use of casting requisites, not less. I'm generally opposed to rules that Edited to add, I have no idea where I was going here, so ignore it...
This makes it much more expensive in the long run to use Teleportation as a weapon. Is that by design, or an unintended consequence of your understanding? Note, in order to target people or their armor/clothes with T: Part, you really need to have invented the spells in advance to do that. Those spells are actually hard to invent, by 5 levels. So a spell that translocates someone out of their clothes/armor up to 50 paces away is now a ReCo 30, Base 15, R:Voice +2, D:Momentary, T:Part +1, and it also warps the individual. 5 levels may not seem like much, but it adds up. Costing a season here and there.
First the line is about determining whether a requisite requires additional levels due to complexity, but I'll answer it based on how I think you intended it to be.
That seems to reinforce the need for casting requisites for teleportation spells. You now have an inconsistency with spells of the Form Corpus requiring requisites in one situation (transformation) but not in another (teleportation). In both cases, the clothes are incidental to the underlying Form, but in one you have to account for them at casting time, and the other you don't.
Oh, and were I a Bjornaer in a saga that didn't require casting requisites for MuCo(An) spells, then I'd be fairly honked off about the situation...
Teleportation's most effective weapon is to send people straight up and let gravity do the rest! Teleporting someone out of their armour, or removing their sword is more akin to disarming them: a move which the combat rules make more difficult than simply stabbing someone. Take of that what you will. I'd also argue that, in this case, it's ultimately a wash. Either you get to teleport people out of their clothes easily (making it more useful as a weapon) or it's easier to teleport people with their clothes (making it more useful for utility). Admittedly a pretty good deal whichever way you strike it. Not many spells are so readily both weapon and tool. Teleportation's versatility is, I think, one of its main draws. And to be honest, I'd sooner see teleportation's utility be made more convenient and it's usefulness as a weapon harder than the other way around. Possibly quite a lot harder to use as a weapon...
And the point I was trying to make about casting requisites isn't that they should always be waived. In the example given, it's clear that the MuCo(An) spell needs that (An) requisite. You're turning a man into a bird. The bird part is a major component of the spell. The He and Te line is more interesting though. Because it suggests that the spell is designed to turn a clothed man - clothes and all - into a bird. If the intention wasn't to also to transform the clothes along with the man, there wouldn't be a need to talk about waiving the He and Te requisites; the clothes would just fall to the floor when the man transformed. Instead, the requisites are waived - which I would argue implies the clothes transform too.
It's that in particular that I would suggest also applies to teleportation. The purpose of the spell is to teleport a person. Teleporting their clothing too is just as incidental as transforming the man's clothing in the MuCo(An) example. So nothing would be remiss if you waived the An/He/Te requisites in this particular situation.
But at this point, we are definitely in a YSMV situation
You aren't understanding that section. The Herbam and Terram requisites aren't waived (waived is never used).
The context of the section is about requisites, and determining when they are ncessary, this would apply to both casting requisites and hard requisites built into the spell, such as MuCo(An) being an example of a spell with a hard requisite, needed at design time and at casting time. Herbam and Terram, though, are incidental, and the spell would take effect, regardless of the involvement of Herbam or Terram on the base Form of Corpus. So those two Forms, when used as requisites to the spell don't add complexity to the spell, and thus do not raise the level of the spell by one magnitude. That's the meaning there. It even says it in the portion you quoted. I'll quote it more completely.
It's clear to me that the requisites aren't waived, and are in fact required at casting time, they just don't raise the level of the spell (which is what casting requisites do).
Oh, it definitely is, but let's not say, like you did, that RAW supports only one view. I've clearly shown that RAW is muddled on this subject, at best. You even said that TME just basically throws their hands up in the air and says troupes need to decide this.
The important thing to consider is the unintended consequences of making (apparently small) choices like this. If you actually waive the casting requisites for ReCo teleportation, why aren't they waived for MuCo(Requisite) transformation? So, then, they are, and it's mostly used by the magus who is a MuCo(An) transformation specialist, or at least a few spells that he uses often on himself. Now he doesn't have to worry about being naked or focus on raising other Arts to accomplish the feat of clothing himself. But the poor Bjornaer does have to deal with being naked, for much longer and/or has to focus on Arts that clothe him, unlike the MuCo(An) specialist. These kind of little perturbations in the rules have big effects on the underlying game, especially if they are ruled upon after the saga has commenced. I've seen entire character concepts invalidated by proposed rules changes. One in the Andorra saga, regarding Ryu's character with the ability to memorize entire books. I can't say if that rule was ever adopted.
I don't believe your interpretation of casting requisites is correct. On pg. 115 (last paragraph on the page) the rules say that "casting requisites are always listed within the body of the spell description". In fact, the entire casting requisites rule seems to be used to cover spells like The Invisible Sling and Supple Iron and Rigid Rope.
If there are no casting requisites present in the body of the spell, there are no casting requisites according to the rules.
Which isn't to say that teleporting leaves your clothes on, or takes them off. Just means casting requisites not already included in the spell aren't going to make casting the spell harder. Apparently.
And aye, there are always different ways to interpret the rules. I'm just arguing from one position (I never meant to say it was the only position!) - a strict reading of the RAW (imo). Though perhaps I should have qualified, when I said that, a strict reading of the RAW to me just means looking at the physical text in front of me and fitting it the situation at hand without too much fiddling.
That isn't to say it's going to produce the best results. Be the only way to interpret the RAW. Result in a less or more restrictive game. Or trump the Rules as Intended (RAI - e.g. if we get the word of God on the subject, then the RAW becomes rather less important in my eyes). My fault for not communicating clearly; too used to discussing this sort of stuff on the official D&D boards over the years where, after a while, everyone gets used to it. Mostly because the rules are a mess! And everyone's trying to make heads of tales of them in one way or another
That's not a correct quote. Your change to the quote changes its meaning drastically. "Casting requisites are listed within the body of the spell description." Where is "always"??? This line distinguishes it from "Requisites that always apply are listed along with a spell’s statistics." If it's what others are calling a hard requisite, it's listed in the statistics and it always applies. If it's not listed there but listed in the description, then it's a casting requisite. What we have here written as if-then statements are:
If the requisite is listed in the spell's statistics, then it always applies.
If the requisite is listed in the body of the spell description but not in the spell's statistics, then it is a casting requisite.
Logical statements do not imply their converses, and interpreting one that way is just making an error. There is no logical fallacy here for having casting requisites not listed within the body. If we were to use your misquote that includes "always," then your interpretation would follow. But without that the statement does not rule out casting requisites not listed in the body.
I disagree that the reading changes though: casting requisites - not requisites generally, not the MuCo(An) stuff, just casting requisites which get their own subheading in the requisite rules - are listed in the body of the spell. That's what it says. If they're not listed in the body of the spell (like the Invisible Sling et al) then I'm not sure the spell actually has casting requisites as the rules define them.
Mind, this is an entirely new tangent. Wichever way it falls, it still won't answer whether or not you can teleport and keep your knickers on as written.
Even disregarding "always," that's the example of a rule that seems unnecessary, at best. Were I inventing spells that transformed or moved stuff around, I would, as a matter of course, add every Form as a casting requisite for the spell, because the underlying form doesn't add to the level, and it doesn't impact the lab total at design time. So, I tend to be relaxed in situations where spell casters (not items) cast spells and want to use casting requisites, even though they didn't say that other, incidental Forms were added for possible casting requisites. Do I, as the SG, want to track what spells have what casting requisites included as part of the design, across multiple characters? As an SG, I have more than enough to keep track of, and tracking and enforcing stuff like this is more like gotcha! SG-ing.
For items to affect incidental forms those are like required requisites, those need to be designed into the item, and require the caster's Arts to be sufficient to handle them at design time as part of the Lab Total. They should be noted with the device effects.
"Are listed" is not the same as "must be listed" or similar.
Would you agree people's names are listed in phone books? But then, by your interpretation, if you can't find a name in the phone book it cannot be someone's name. Yet we know that is not true. Also, not all the names listed belong to people.
That "are listed" is telling you what members of the set are. The phone book is a set of people's names and company names. So, returning to the description, that means if you find a requisite listed in the body but not in the statistics, then it is a casting requisite. But if it is listed in the statistics it is a "hard" requisite, regardless of whether or not it is listed in the body.
Tangents happen a lot in these threads. Nothing to get into a twist over. I think we've generally answered that it's a minor focus. With that said and done, it's time to discuss the other implications of what has been brought up. Related to the focus, I'll point out that a focus in teleportation makes casting requisites desirable, as a differentiating feature between the magus with the focus and those without it.
Rego covers the following: commanding beings (e.g. ReTe to order and elemental instead of ReTe to do telekinesis), controlling motion (like telekinesis, and allowing motion like jumping), craft magic, flow of energies, natural changes of state (blossoming, freezing, etc.), summoning, teleportation, and wards. I think I've got all the major areas covered and that those show up in many places so they are justifiably major. There are some minor ones, too, such as show up with some mysteries. So, with a Technique being 10 times as commmon as a TeFo combination and with there being about 8 major areas and some minor ones, one area should be reasonable as a Minor Focus. You have to tread carefully with being overly lenient. E.g. classifying craft magic and summoning and healing and others as teleportation gets really broad.
Looking at the lists of example foci in the Core book, I'd have to say the Damage one comes closest to "teleportation".
Damage - "Any Art, as long as the effect does damage directly, either by inflicting a wound or doing a certain amount of damage which can be soaked."
Teleportation - "Any Form, as long as the effect moves something instantly, without the target(s) moving through any intervening space."
Given that every Form should theoretically be able to be used to teleport "beings associated with (Form) (from one supernatural realm?)...", every Form is potentially applicable.
So I'd stick to Teleportation being a Major Focus.
That being said, I'd allow a Minor Focus along the lines of say Teleportation (living things), which covers Animal, Corpus and Herbam. But I'd be a stickler about its restrictions. Try to bring along something not covered, even if it's a single coin, and you'd lose the focus bonus.
Corpus and Terram are the only forms that have (published) teleportation effects, Corpus in the Core book, and Terram had a guideline that modeled the corpus guidelines added in Magi of Hermes on page 92, starting at ReTe 4.
If teleportation effects are limited to those two forms, and casting requisites are applicable, for example to teleport a wooden object requires ReTe(He), minor is reasonable, because the limits are largely going to be based on requisites. That means that it is limited to one Technique and Two forms for primary use, this is a bit more restrictive than Healing as a minor focus, as that covers at least 1 Technique and 3 Forms.
"I'm going to teleport the spirit to me, instead of summoning it. What's the worst that can happen?"
It's probably someone with such a focus who makes casting the Ambulatory Laboratory practicable.
This covers significant portions of Creo (just from the core book some CrAu and most of CrIg and maybe some others), a huge portion of Perdo, Muto effects like turning air into damaging gas, Rego effects that slam things or throw things, and cross-over stuff like The Crystal Dart. I wouldn't consider this anywhere near close to about a ninth or so of Rego.
Even look at the different language you used, "Art" vs "Form." (5x10)=50 -> (1x10)=10 just based on the wording comparison. So that part of wording alone puts "Damage" about 5x as broad as "Teleportation." That is roughly the comparison between a Minor Magical Focus and a Major Magical Focus according to ArM5. Another part of the language you the second phrase you used for teleportation is limiting, while the second phrase for damage is clarifying that it applies to the multiple ways of doing damage.
How about the best: you use tons more Vis than you would otherwise. As teleportation that uses R: Arcane Connection to move something to an Arcane Connection. For an individual, that is something like level 55 or 60, assuming it's not a big individual. That's using the teleportation guidelines instead of summoning. Is it worth adding all those magnitudes and lots of Vis to probably get a lower penetration (even with the Focus unless your Arts are really high) than going outside your focus to do normal summoning? It's probably a harder spell to invent, too, since lots of other things in the lab don't go with the Focus multiplier (lab bonuses, Magic Theory, similar spells).
I'm well ware that there are examples, I'd like to see a greater use of casting requisites, not less. I'm generally opposed to rules that 
