Yes i agree, it's the only official guideline that fit the effect 
but at least we agree on the prospective level of a new one to discover through research (30-35) after that it's a troupe decision.
I like to think of ways to expend magic theory ^^ research is my favorite part of that edition of Ars Magica.
Do you agree that it should be a minor breakthrough or do you think it should be higher ?
It's certainly no more than minor, and perhaps even a minor one that has much fewer than the standard 30 research points recommended for Minor Breakthroughs.
I know that it's not visible, but it is a tunnel.
If teleportation is that the person disappears from location A and reappears at location B then whether an Intangible Tunnel can work depends on how you view the teleportation effect.
A) Object disappears from reality and reappears at destination
B) Object is turned into magic which instantly streams though the distance and objects, it then reforms (like turning something into air so they can be blown a distance)
C) Some unknown method...
If it is option B, then magic is already going through the tunnel - why not the magic containing the person?
If it is option A, surely the tunnel could be used as a short-cut?
you could use a Mu/Vi(Co) to change the person into a spell
[/quote]
I have to ask, why doesn't it work that way? If I can touch[1] them and they can touch me, why can't the spell that transports you instantaneously from A to B go through the tunnel without covering the intervening space? It is magic, after all. And if that's the case, it can be done with 15th level spells. Of course, such a journey has a high degree of being a one way trip, since you have to have an AC to someone else who is there to send him back.
[1] I think I see that you might contend that the touch is figurative and not literal, but even then, the tunnel exists and spells can move back and forth through it, since it is a two way connection.
Serfs Parma but it seems like there has to be some cannon examples out there of effects that bring things to a magi.
Either way I think it's overkill to require Orginal Research just to create a spell with an unpublished guidline. Kinda misses the point of the whole magic system. Original Research should be for more dramatic changes like changing the limits of magic.
I think it's appropriate to require some research for a new guideline, but I certainly don't think it is a minor breakthrough. I was thinking that there was something regarding creating new base effects somewhere, but I haven't found it, yet.
I don't know isn't that part of what standard Labwork is supposed to represent? And Aren't the core rules pretty clear about how the "standard guidelines" are just that guidelines? Not a definitive list of everything possible with hermetic magic.
Edit: To be clear I'm still talking about base effects not the other not Range, Target, or Duration. There are specific rules concerning those Guidelines.
There are two related questions to ask: is the guideline being proposed to the troupe already known about? If so, what's the appropriate level, and has someone else already invented a spell with that guideline and is a lab text available for the spell. If not, why not, and how long will it take to figure it out?
There are some guidelines that are available only to Mystery Cults, and I tend to leave those where they are and not let PCs not in the Mystery Cult build spells from those guidelines, maybe you don't play those that way, but my feeling is those guidelines were invented by the Mystery Cult, and as of yet, no one else has come up with them, but could they with original research?
If a mystery cult requires a virtue to pull something off (animae magic) I would not let just anyone use it. Other things would be on a case by case basis. But in general I would assume that those guidelines are just uncommon ones that most magi could use if they invented a spell on their own.
On the topic of the spell, summoning someone if you lack the range would meant the spell fails IMO. There are a few ways you can get around the level 55 requirement. An item, a modified wizard's reach, a sight range spell and a scrying or probably the best way, a intangible tunnel.
Hmm. Should it matter if there is lab text available? If a character had never read a lab text that made use of an obscure (but still from RAW) base effect would he be unable to produce it? Or are there no "obscure" base effects? Does every Hermetic Magus know the full contents of all the TeFo charts. (Baring the stuff limited to the special unique snowflakes of course)
I mean barring disadvantages any magus, no matter how low their scores, has some chance of sponting almost ANY listed effect. Does that mean a standard opening of the arts fully informs an apprentice of every spontable effect that has already been accomplished with "standard" Hermetic magic. The equivalent of reading what must be hundreds and of lab texts.
Usually those unique effects change or break some established rule. Granted thanks to the nature of RPG's sometimes the first we hear of that rule is when they publish the exception. And yes those can/must be discovered through original research or some similar method. But since the rules say these list of effects are absolutely not exhaustive. Coming up with a new guideline not on a TeFo list can not by itself be considered a change in the rules. No rules change no need for breakthroughs.
A Lab text isn't necessary, but if the guideline exists, a spell has likely been invented, and that should be considered. Generally, it's presumed that magi can invent any spell from existing guidelines.
IMO, it's better to let those guidelines stay with the Mystery Cult, unless there is an explicit note that the guidelines are for everyone. TMRE does often identify that the guidelines mentioned are available to all magi and which are reserved for cult members.
Isn't that what I said?
Seemed like you were asking, and I was being lazy and replying to Lamech.
Sorry missed his post and was lazy to.
To join JL, it is very much a saga's assumption, and the RAW vary on this.
The fact that hermetic magic is very flexible and can do a lot of things doesn't mean that it has yet discovered how to do these things, or even that you do know how. If I give you enough bricks and mortar, you can build a small one. But building a sound house? It is possible, you know it, you just donât know how exactly, and may encounter multiple failures.
Let's take the corebook (please, serf's parma! 
), the description of the techniques and forms plus the limits of magic, and assume that, without any research, you can freely invent any spell that doesn't contradict these, creating a new guideline for it.
There's nothing forbiding you to create a portal to the magic realm (or to arcadia, for that matter). Yet ROP: M teaches us that this is not possible for Hermetic Magic, not without a breakthrough
There's nothing forbidding you from inventing a simple spell that creates a temporary magical creature, with its own powers. But then, why do the Merinita bother with the Major Mystery of Animae Magic? This cheapens it a lot.
There's nothing forbidding you from creating Sun duration Watching Wards, since the ritual is only there to support the (potentially indefinite) duration. Hell, I thought that! 
Yet, in Rival Magic, we learn that hermetic magic can't bind a spell and a watching effect without a ritual. Scrap my moon wardsâŚ
There's nothing stopping you from using a Boundary Creo Vim spell to raise your Aura. But Hermetic Architecture teaches us that this is beyond the reach of "normal" hermetic magic.
And why can't you just use ReVi(Ig) to extract ignem vis from a fire in your aura?
And so on. One can go through most of the books and find similar things
So in my opinion?
Sometimes, just saying âsure, you can do itâ will either cheapens another playerâs powers, detract from a story (Why bother with these pesky Mystery Cults?), or impede creative thinking (Why bother with the Living Corpse, if adding a Mentem and Vim requisite gives you a magical, intelligent servant?).
So while there are things that should be readily possible without any appropriate guideline (say, teleporting an animal), not everything should. Thereâs a full gradiant of difficulty, between âsure, no problemâ and âNope, Limit of Magicâ.
This gives an incentive for players to experiment, too: Without going through the full stabilization process, one could still experiment to try and create a spell that he shouldnât normally. If successful, this gives him a unique spell he may trade, rather than just something any other magus could do.
Or, you could still allow something, but with a few magnitudes penalties until this has been properly researched.
This also allows one to give more flesh to the OoH and the bonisagi. These guys are supposed to work to improve MT, but how often in your saga have you said to your players âHey, thereâs this neat thing the boni have researched for the order, here it isâ? On the contrary, when you find new, free guidelines (which happens as least once a year), you may say âLook, a guy has figured out how to do this! Itâs great!â, just like you can say âOh, sure, Rego Terram was 2 magnitudes harder before 965â. And suddenly, you understand why the Order puts up with bonisnatching.
Of course, YMMV, and itâs fine
In our saga we ruled :
Everything in the core book is known by everyone
Everything else is not, if it's something small (new guidelines) and do not require a virtue of some sort you need either some source to explain it to you or to experiment the first time you try.
The rest needs breakthrough (some might need far less than a minor one but still).
Keep in mind as well the lowest level of breakthrough could simply represent "sure you can do it, but you don't know you can do it yet"
Do you perhaps mean discovery?
This seems like double dipping to me. Isn't this what the study of Arts and the process of invention already represent?
Well that isn't exactly what I mean or how I read the various spell design and rules from the core book (pg 95-111). I'm saying your supposed to using TeFo charts and sample spells to guide you in what's possible without assuming that they are the only effects possible. I'm not trying to say that all that is not forbidden is allowed.
Until the publication of RoP:M there where no rules governing the travel to the Realm of Magic each troupe had to determine the specifics themselves. Such is the nature of RPG's.
Create a Magical Animal CrAn Lvl 50 with a Vim Req. Clearly creating a magical creature isn't easy. And given the nature of Creo magic doing it temporarily is only harder. For me a perfect example of how to use a published guideline to give you an idea where to set the bar.
Such is the nature of RPG's. Still now that we know it is a pretty clear difference between the spec duration watching ward and a general spell container that only releases it's contents when the duration expires.
"Things" as in rules that clearly state what is and is not possible. If you have the books then use them or make up your own rules your choice. If you don't have the books then you have no choice but make up your own rules.
Agreed for the most part. I overstated it a bit when I said Original Research was only for going up against the Limits of Magic. But it is for changing the rules of how magic works in the game. I look at it this way if I didn't know the original research rules existed would I have to say there was no way to create the effect given the rules then it is probably a subject for original research.
Um no. No Really. A big no. That's not how Original Research works. Your confusing it with Integration. Effects created during Research are just normal effects (plus the random effects of the experimentation roll) even the ones that result in the breakthrough. Re-read Seeking the Unknown pg 27 HoH:TL. If you wanted to create a new base effect, by the rules, you WOULD NOT be able to create a spell using it until after it was stabilized. You certainly can't attempt to create the spell hoping you get a discovery.