If I have an AC to the lock of hair I gave someone, then the intangible tunnel can only target the lock of hair as if I were touching it (range:touch).
If I cast intangible tunnel on my talisman however, the talisman has the virtue of extending my touch range to anything it itself is touching. It would then be a reasonable inturpritation that I could use this property to affect anything it is touching through an intangible tunnel.
But only if you are currently touching the talisman (e.g., holding your staff and extending it to touch something otherwise out of reach. Once you stop touching the talisman (e.g., it's taken away from you) the talisman is no longer considered a part of you and no longer extends your reach (i.e., no longer are you considered touching anything your talisman is touching).
As I read that, you must be touching the talisman for you to gain the benefits of the talisman being a part of you (e.g., you count as touching anything your talisman is touching).
I'll quibble a bit about Ranges here. Let's assume that even when your talisman was taken away from you it still counted at a part of you (which I don't concede, but consider for the sake of argument). Then you would be touching the person holding the talisman. You still couldn't cast an Intangible Tunnel on the target, since you don't have an AC to him and that's an Arc Range spell. At best, you could cast Touch spells on him, since your talisman was touching him. I doubt you could even cast Voice or Sight spells if you couldn't see the target and he was out of voice range. An Intangible Tunnel specifically allows any spell to be used with a Range of Touch or greater. But having your talisman touch an unseen target would only allow you to cast a spell at an unseen target at Touch range.
I suppose that assumes, however, that you can't cast a Voice or Sight Range spell as a Touch Range spell. For example, if I as a magus were temporarily blinded, could I cast a Sight spell by touching the target? That's an interesting question that I suspect has been answered somewhere already.
I've just considered the touching of them both to be transitive. A = B and B = A so A = C, could decide they simply aren't. To continue an electricity analogy, they could be AC vs DC or different frequencies etc. that a hermetic breakthrough could overcome.
My interpretation was incorrect. I was rereading and the ReVi describes it as "mystical contact" which is "effective(ly) touch range", so not touching in any sense other than the ability to consider the target in touch range for spells cast through the tunnel.
This is quibbling, I know, but I'd say making someone infertile is more hampering them without actually injuring them (base 5) rather than doing superficial damage to a body (base 3), The example given for superficial damage is removing hair. The examples given for hampering are make them lame and blur their eyesight. I think infertility is more like the latter than the former. Just ask couple who's had trouble conceiving and they'll tell you the effect is more than just superficial. And looking at it from the other side, of a couple that doesn't want to conceive, I think they'd agree that it's not superficial either.
Also, superficial damage seems to be permanent, while hampering heals as a Light Wound. That seems more the mechanism you want. The man's ability to conceive is hampered until it heals like a Light Wound.
And I'm not sure why it needs to be Sight, unless you're looking at griefing people. For any personal use I'd imagine you'd get close enough to any potential target that a Touch spell would be possible.
I suspect that the spell is based on the level 10 InCo guideline "sense all useful information about a body."
My thought is that either: (A) the guideline allows for determining the cause of infertility, in which case Revealed Flaws of the Mortal Flesh will tell you that information, or (B) the guideline does not allow for determining the cause of infertility, in which case neither spell will tell you what you need to know.
My thought is that it's not an overpowering ability, and we are talking about magic, so why not allow it? So I'd say just take RFotMF and call it a day. Of course it will only tell you of any physical causes of infertility. If a mischievous faerie is playing a trick on someone or a demon is tormenting them, the spell won't tell you that.
(And dropping 10 spell points from The Maculate Noblewoman will give you the 10 points you need to correct Seeding Mars, assuming it's not too big a spell to learn during apprenticeship.)
Sight because at the time of making the spell she's not good at casting subtley. Since voice range is the range at which the voice can be heard. Usually overlooked with voice range. Also, it isn't just for her.
For The Maculate Noblewoman, do you think a Vim req for Determination of why. Physical injury, humours, a curse, is just barren. I'm thinking, if a curse, what kind, how to remove etc would be unknown.
I originally had Seeding Mars at base:5, but that heals as a light wound which is a week. I mean better safe than sorry, right? Jk, she would really be upset if she rendered someone infertile permanently. If the hair removal of 3 is permanent death of hair ... I want an even lower base, like hair clipped not dead.
So that's base 3, but target Part. Like part of the hair is destroyed, at the base. I never make PeCo spells, kinda lost there. I am wondering why there isn't Part on these spells.
For the seamstress grog, the mystic ability enchanting embroidery. I was thinking, in general, the effects would be subtle like "people will like this" or "the noblewoman this is being made for will be happy". Since she's a gossip and a Meddler, she intentionally and unintentionally enchants things based upon what she thinks best.
It's emotion, like enchanting music, not Entrancement. It's effect is a genuine emotion, however music is being directed at the time of the person's exposure. Embroidery is an item so either it isn't strong or it's ability to affect new people fades. It would also be dampened in a dominion aura.
What are your thoughts?
I'm not sure what Vim has to do with physical disability. I suppose if you wanted to allow it to diagnose magical ailments as well as physical ones then a Vim requisite would be appropriate. But then the spell level would go to 15.
My point was that I don't think rendering someone infertile is superficial. So Ind, Part, or Group is irrelevant; I don't think the level 3 guideline is appropriate for that spell. I think rendering someone infertile (for however long) is "hampering without injuring." Therefore, I would require a level 5 base for the spell. You can take the the R/D/T to wherever you want from there. But I'd call it a base 5 PeCo effect.
I was avoiding specifics...
I wasn't invisioning damage to the ability to make sperm, just killing the sperm. Hence the 3 for hair. I'm thinking probably needs Part since it affects the product of the part. Like saliva, giving someone dry mouth and thirsty isn't destroying the ability to make saliva. Unless you mess up, I would think.
My thoughts are that they give very little guidance for how Enchanting (Ability) ought to work.
Further thinking tells me that I don't want to overthink it. Grogs should not, as a rule, be the focus of stories. They are the support characters. So, her enchanting embroidery should be an addition to a story, not the story itself. As such, it should be relatively straightforward in its application, and more something that a storyguide could hand-wave, since it won't be the central focus of any story.
Again, I stand by my interpretation. Regardless of how you define it, or of how long you want it to last, I think that the effect of removing a person's ability to conceive children (even if applied for just an hour) is "hampering without harming" rather than "superficial damage." It's more than superficial since it can prevent an unwanted pregnancy, which is a potentially very bad result. If you wanted to make the spell only last an hour rather than heal as a Light Wound, I'd allow that as a cosmetic change to the spell. But at its heart I believe that the effect of removing a person's ability to conceive is a base 5 PeCo effect.
If I'm outvoted by the troupe, that's fine. But my stand on the issue is that it's a base 5 effect.
Split the difference? 4 with Part? Lol. Can do 5. I'm more concerned with the recovery time and not spell level, she would feel real bad... plus looked down upon etc.
She should invent animal and herbam versions first for testing. Both would be useful on a farm. Especially because you wouldn't need to geld bulls. Just temporary, so if the stud dies or what not you're not sitting on male bulls that can't breed.
Would take care of a lot of problems.
I thought about it some more and some examples might help. I wanted to keep close to your proposed effects of the spell to see how it would apply in other situations. Say I wanted to remove the target's saliva or the mucus from his sinuses or the blood from one hand. Any of those might hamper the target without causing injury. Removing the saliva might give the target a penalty to speaking and casting verbal spells; removing the mucus from his sinuses might give him a splitting headache causing him to suffer a penalty to Concentration checks. Removing the blood from his hand might make the hand unusable until blood flow was restored. In each case, it's hampering without harming, much like your example.
Of course, I question whether any of those effects are appropriate spells for Mythic Europe, where biological knowledge was a lot less than it is today.
I also look to the definition of "superficial" for guidance. The first definition of superficial I found is "existing or occurring at or on the surface" (e.g., superficial burns). That's actually a good definition for this situation. Superficial damage is damage existing or occurring at or on the surface. So removing hair is superficial damage; causing the target's fingernails to fall out is superficial damage; giving the target light burns is superficial; causing the target to break out in pox that might make her look sicker than she really is would be superficial.
But once you enter the body (e.g., to remove a bodily fluid) it's no longer superficial. Then you're harming without hurting.
Of course, you don't want the effect to last too short a time either. That could lead to some awkward results too. 
That makes sense. I was thinking of superficial as not serious. Heh either way it's superficial to plot lol.
I agree on the anatomy and medicine of Mythic Europe, it's based on the theories of the time. Which makes it fun :0)
I had an interesting thought and was wondering what the rest of you thought. What if I used the PeCo guideline of "destroy a corpse" to destroy a body part removed from a living body (e.g., blood, hair, nail clippings, severed finger, etc.)? Would that destroy the item's use as an Arcane Connection, or would I then be stuck with a bunch of dust that was an arcane connection to me?
I tend to think that it would destroy their effectiveness as an AC since I seem to recall that it was implied somewhere that burning an AC (e.g., hair) would destroy it's effectiveness as an AC. In that case you wouldn't be stuck with a pile of ash that was an AC to you.
But I thought I'd ask.
I'd say if you don't have a body part anymore, you don't have an Arcane Connection.