[Morg]

Indirect Combat Spells are Treated like Ranged combat attacks;

Is there any RAW that prevents the use of the Take Aim action, Attacker Image Magnification, Aimed Shot, and Called Shot actions with the casting of an Indirect combat spell?

[Crash_00]

Technically yes.

Called Shots may only be performed by melee weapons (Unarmed Attacks fall under this classification) and weapons that fire in Single Shot, Semi-Auto, and Burst modes. Since indirect spells don't fall under any of those categories, they can't be called (the FAQ contradicts this). Additionally, a Called Shot can only be followed by the following actions without losing it: Take Aim, Fire Weapon, Throw Weapon, or Melee/Unarmed Attack. Spellcasting is not on the list, so the called shot would be lost by RAW.

Take aim may be used with a ready ranged weapon (Firearm, Bow, or Throwing Weapon). Note that the list does not include indirect spells or leave an opening (like having an etc.), it is a limiting list and prevents things not on the list from being used with the take aim action. While it can be argued whether firearm means weapons under the firearm skill group (which would prevent the use with heavy weapons and a number of exotic weapons), there isn't really any leeway for getting spells in the list.

Attacker using image modification is actually a special use of the take aim action, so it suffers that actions limitations as well.

Keep in mind these are strictly RAW interpretations. Many GMs will rule things to fit better at their table.

[Lethe]

Indirect Combat Spells are Treated like Ranged combat attacks;

Is there any RAW that prevents the use of the Take Aim action, Attacker Image Magnification, Aimed Shot, and Called Shot actions with the casting of an Indirect combat spell?

Depends on how you handled indirect spells so far at your table.
Some GMs give negative visibility modifiers or range modifiers or the enemy a cover bonus, solely based on that treated like ranged combat quote. Those GMs should of course allow aiming and calling shots as well. Everything else would be double standard.

[Zilfer]

An interestiong question that made me take a second and think.... Called shot? how would you called shot a indirect spell. I took Stun bolt.

Then I was like oh maybe that's the different between "hitting" the body target your aiming for, and nailing them right between the eyes with it. Interesting concept but also you might want to clarify then does this added Damage Value add to the Drain Value of a Spell? (Doesn't make sense to do that for me since it's still the same spell just aimed in a more 'potent' location.)

Something to think about I guess. xD

[Walks Through Walls]

Zilfer

The example you are looking at isn't an indirect combat spell. It is a mana combat spell.

An indirect combat spell is something like lightning bolt and the reason it is important where it hits is because the defender gets armor so hitting in a more vulnerable location would help negate that. Stunbolt on the other hand bypasses armor by hitting the target directly so getting a better hit isn't really important like you stated.

[rasmusnicolaj]

Indirect Combat spells are treated like ranged combat attacks

From SR4A p 204.

I quess you could use that as an argument for letting a mage take aim etc. as with a indirect spell, but still as Crash points out it is not RAW.
Houserule whatever your group is comfortable with.

Rasmus

[Zilfer]

Zilfer

The example you are looking at isn't an indirect combat spell. It is a mana combat spell.

An indirect combat spell is something like lightning bolt and the reason it is important where it hits is because the defender gets armor so hitting in a more vulnerable location would help negate that. Stunbolt on the other hand bypasses armor by hitting the target directly so getting a better hit isn't really important like you stated.

Wow now I feel embarrassed. xD

[Crash_00]

Some GMs give negative visibility modifiers or range modifiers or the enemy a cover bonus, solely based on that treated like ranged combat quote. Those GMs should of course allow aiming and calling shots as well. Everything else would be double standard.

Actually, it has nothing to do with that particular part of indirect combat spells. The steps of casting a spell actually specifically lists Visibility Modifiers being an issue: "Casting a spell requires a Complex Action. The Spellcaster rolls Spellcasting + Magic, modified by foci, totem bonuses, bound spirits, and/or Visibility modifiers."

So it's has nothing to do with double standards. I always just picture bringing forth and projecting the magic to be too chaotic and fast to be able to aim with great precision.