[Mäx]

Just remembered i have the Runners Toolkit cheat sheets, that one makes it quite explicit that visibility modifiers apply for all types of spells.
Start of the spellcasting walkthrough for non indirect combat spells.
1. Choose the spell you wish to cast at the target.
2. Choose a Force for the spell, up to twice your Magic.
3. Add your Magic to your pool.
4. Add your Spellcasting to your pool.
5. Add or subtract the modifi er for your Mentor Spirit to your pool,
if applicable.
6. Add the Force of a Spellcasting Focus (if it is of the correct
type) and Power Focus to your pool.
7. Subtract any Wound Modifi er from your pool.
8. Subtract Visibility Modifers (p. 136, SR4A) as necessary.

[Orvich]

8. Subtract Visibility Modifers (p. 136, SR4A) as necessary.

Indeed.

[Mäx]

8. Subtract Visibility Modifers (p. 136, SR4A) as necessary.

Indeed.

Yes, as necessary, as there obviously always isn't any modfiers for visibily.
And remember before you once again start claiming its only saying that for Indirect combat spells sake, this walkthrough is for all spells that aren't inderec combat spells(those have their own walkthrough)

[JustADude]

Okay, I think this may have just reached the point where this is being added to the big list of "minor crap that nobody will ever agree on, ever." Right along-side how burst-fire grenades stack their damage and all the other timeless classics.

And yes, I realize the irony of me saying it's pointless to keep debating a subject.

[Eye Eternal]

Amen, Dude...

[Noble Drake]

8. Subtract Visibility Modifers (p. 136, SR4A) as necessary.

Indeed.

I have to ask... does that mean you are sticking with your argument that the RAW don't apply visibility modifiers to spellcasting dice pools in general?

I'm curious because of how completely thoroughly it has been shown that the RAW are just as clear on that as they are on there being any possible bonuses from foci use or spirit aid, and if you haven't come to the point of "RAW may support that, but I don't like it," that the others previously sharing the opinion did... well, that shows an ability to "stick to your guns" the likes of which I have never seen before, and I would have to commend you for such a display of unadulterated stubbornness.

I don't mean that to be demeaning - I am genuinely impressed.

[Zilfer]

Looks like it's an agreement to disagree! Though I've already conceeded RAW it might be that way... but it shouldn't be that way I thinks.

We cool now?

 

[Black]

8. Subtract Visibility Modifers (p. 136, SR4A) as necessary.

Indeed.

I have to ask... does that mean you are sticking with your argument that the RAW don't apply visibility modifiers to spellcasting dice pools in general?

I'm curious because of how completely thoroughly it has been shown that the RAW are just as clear on that as they are on there being any possible bonuses from foci use or spirit aid, and if you haven't come to the point of "RAW may support that, but I don't like it," that the others previously sharing the opinion did... well, that shows an ability to "stick to your guns" the likes of which I have never seen before, and I would have to commend you for such a display of unadulterated stubbornness.

I don't mean that to be demeaning - I am genuinely impressed.

And this is were we should wrap this one up.  9 pages of discussion without reaching concensus or resorting to personal attacks?  Brilliant and +1 to all involved.  I personally have been following this thread closely, and it will change the way my game runs direct spells (but out of respect to all sides to this discussion, I wont say which way )

Kudos to you all 

[acolyte99]

One last info for those who are interested, what the devs intended:
I found on the dumpshock forum a thread from 2010 "Visibility Modifiers and SpellCasting" by searching for "+visibility +spellcasting +cover". Don't know, if I'm allowed to post links here, so I won't.
In it Synner, who was a developer of SR4A, explains about visibility, cover and why the change was made to make cover a bonus (in SR4 it was a penalty).
It was because attacker very often "forgot" to apply the cover penalty of the defender to their attack and spellcasting rolls. The devs thought, that it would be very rare, that the defender would forget to apply a cover bonus to their own roll, so they put it there.

I won't say more about, what this thread says about cover and visibility. Everybody can decide for themselves, if they are interested, in what was intended and if he wants to read it or not.
 I have no problem if people play with other rules than me, if it works for them. I just tried to be helpful by finding quotes that would clarify the issue and I will stop now.