text:
Whan Happens if I Copy Etrata, the Silencer?

What happens if I try to copy Etrata, the Silencer with Quasiduplicate (via Qicken, Leyline of Anticipation, etc.) in response to her triggered ability? Since I create a copy of a Legendary creature, according to the rule, I have to sacrifice one. So my question is: what happens if I choose the one which is going to be reshuffled in the deck? Does the copy remain and the effect of the exiled monster etc. + the reshuffle take place?

Re: question title. What do you consider a "bug" here?

There are serious problems wit this question. You may cast instants and activate ability while Etrata's ability is on the stack before it resolves. You may not cast spell or activate abilities while an ability is resolving. Also, Quasiduplicate is a sorcery, so you can't cast it at all while Etrata's ability is on the stack.

Quasiduplicate is a sorcery, so you need an ability like Quicken to be able to cast it in response to a triggered ability.  Also, you cannot cast spells during the resolution of an ability, only in response to that ability.  I have made edits to correct both of these.

The legend rule will apply in this case and you will have to put either the original or the copy into your graveyard, and if you put the original into the graveyard, you will not shuffle it into your library, but the rest of its effect will still apply. In any case, you will not shuffle the copy into your library.
The key here is that it is impossible to take any action while another spell or ability is resolving. So, if you are somehow casting Quasiduplicate to copy Etrata while Etrata is about to be reshuffled, you must be casting it in response to Etrata's triggered ability. If you do so, after the spell resolves, you will have both the original and the copy, so state-based actions will apply and the legend rule will require you to put one of the two into your graveyard. If you choose to put the original into your graveyard, you will still follow all of the instructions possible, and you will shuffle your library but not shuffle anything in because the original creature is no longer there to shuffle in, and the copy is a separate creature unaffected by the ability. If you instead put the copy into your graveyard, it will be as though nothing has changed, and you will resolve the ability as usual.

No, you don't get to shuffle Etrata into your library if you sacrifice her.
First of all, Quasiduplicate is a sorcery. That means you can't play it while Etrata's ability is on the stack. You can play sorceries only when you have priority, during your main phase, and when the stack is empty.

307.1. A player who has priority may cast a sorcery card from their hand during a main phase of their turn when the stack is empty.

Second, if you somehow manage to play Quasiduplicate at instant speed in response to Etrata's trigger, it would resolve first and, as you already noted, you would have to choose which Etrata to keep. If you keep the copy, the original that triggered its ability goes to the graveyard. When the triggered ability resolves, it tries to shuffle Etrata into your library, but the card in the graveyard is a new object - Etrata's ability "loses track" of its source when it changes zones. It will still exile the targeted creature with a hit counter on it, but Etrata will not be shuffled back.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.
609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

Etrata, the Silencer has a triggered ability "Whenever Etrata deals combat damage to a player, exile target creature that player controls and put a hit counter on that card. That player loses the game if they own three or more exiled cards with hit counters on them. Etrata's owner shuffles Etrata into their library." That entire ability goes onto the stack as a block, and resolves together. You do not get priority between parts of it resolving, and you cannot cast anything "while" this is resolving. You either play it before it resolves, or after. If you somehow play Quasiduplicate while that is on the stack (which normally you wouldn't be able to do, as it is a sorcery), then the spell "Create a token that's a copy of a creature you control" goes on the stack. Once that resolves, you have two legendary creatures. If you choose to sacrifice the "real" one, then when you reach Etrata's ability, the Etrata that it applies to is no longer on the battlefield. Since the ability "looks for" Etrata on the battlefield, it will not be able to find it, and so will not shuffle it into your deck.
If you want to pursue this strategy, a better card would be Helm of the Host, which specifically says that the copy isn't legendary, so you would not have to sacrifice either creature.

If you chose to sacrifice the Etrata whose ability is on the stack, you will end up with Etrata in your graveyard and the copy on the battlefield.  You will still get to exile a creature with a hit counter.
This is because the triggered ability still resolves, and does as much as it can successfully.  See Hackworth's answer for why Etrata doesn't get shuffled back in from the graveyard.
Note: there were some issues with the question that have been edited.  This is an a response to the simplified question.

Abilities that mention a card by name are tied to that specific copy of the card, not any card with that name, those few that are specify "cards named X" like Accumulated Knowledge, Detention Sphere or Demigod of Revenge. This means that the triggered ability of Etrata, the Silencer is tied to the specific copy of Etrata that had swung, you do not get to choose which copy of a creature will be subject to an effect that mentions that creature by name.
You also cannot cast anything while an effect is resolving, there are things in Magic that cannot be interrupted. Players need to have priority to cast spells, most magic players quickly pick up how priority moves and are able to follow that and cast spells, no player has priority while a spell is resolving, and the full spell must resolve before any player gets priority. You would also need to be able to cast Quasiduplicate, a sorcery, at instant speed, this can be done through effects like Quicken or Leyline of Anticipation.
Copying a legendary creature causes the legend rule to apply, this happens as a state based action, as soon as the copy is on the field, before any player gets priority, all but one copy of that creature you control must be sacrificed. The only way around this is through Mirror Gallery which removes the legend rule while it is in play, or copies like Sakashima the Impostor which keep their own name, so the rule doesn't apply.
If the goal is to avoid shuffling Etrata into the library, the best way to do this would be to bounce or flicker her while her ability is on the stack. You could have Brago, King Eternal, Mistmeadow Witch or Deadeye Navigator as instant speed and repeatable ways of flickering her, breaking the connection between Etrata the card and the ability on the stack. Removing the source of the ability once it's on the stack does not stop that ability from resolving, so you still get the exile, still move towards the three hit loss for your opponent.


text:
Understanding: Why is Spark Double triggering enter the battlefield abilities of the copied creature?
Spark Double reads:

You may have Spark Double enter the battlefield as a copy of a creature or planeswalker you control, except it enters with an additional +1/+1 counter on it if it’s a creature, it enters with an additional loyalty counter on it if it’s a planeswalker, and it isn’t legendary if that permanent is legendary.

If I decide to copy a creature with an ETB-effect, like Dreadhorde Twins, why does Spark Double also trigger the copied ETB-effect? Its own ETB-effect is, that it may enter the battlefield as a copy of a creature, does that mean, its own ETB-effect is always resolved first?

If you read the phrase "Spark Double enter[s] the battlefield as a copy of a creature" carefully, this should be intuitively obvious. Why it actually follows from the rules is another matter, of course.

Spark Double triggers the copied creature's ETB effects because its copy ability works as a replacement effect, not as its own ETB ability. On the battlefield, there is no time when the game sees the non-copied version of Spark Double, and copied creature's ETB's can trigger as they would on the original.
Spark Double's copy ability and the other modifications (counters, non-legendary) are replacement effects:

614.1c Effects that read "[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ," "As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ," or "[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . " are replacement effects.

That means if you choose to copy a creature or planeswalker, the game does not see the non-copied Spark Double enter the battlefield, but only the copied creature/planeswalker:

614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. [..]

The event to be replaced is the Spark Double entering as a 0/0 creature, which is the consequence of a creature spell resolving. That means all applicable ETB triggers will happen, whether they are on the copied creature, or on other sources that apply to the copied permanent entering.
Hypothetically, the only way that the copied creature's ETB's would not go off was if the copy ability itself was an ETB. If Spark Double would copy a creature as e.g. an ETB or activated ability, it would be too late to trigger the copied creature's ETB's. Also, practically speaking, the copy ability could not be its own ETB, because if Spark Double entere the battlefield as a 0/0, it would generally die to state-based actions before it could assume its copied form.

Spark Double's ability is not an enter the battlefield trigger but rather an enter the battlefield replacement effect.  When a creature enters the battlefield, there are two quanta of time.  The first is the moment that it enters the battlefield, and the second is the moment after.  Replacement effects happen at the moment that the creature enters the battlefield, whereas enter the battlefield triggers happen at the moment immediately after that.  Thus, Spark Double gains the ETB trigger before triggered abilities are checked.
This difference is both visible and notable in terms of when choices are made.  Replacement effects need their choices made before the permanent enters the battlefield whereas triggered abilities have their choices made after.
Here are the relevant rules for all of the above:

614.1c Effects that read "[This permanent] enters the battlefield with ... ," "As [this permanent] enters the battlefield ... ," or "[This permanent] enters the battlefield as ... " are replacement effects.
614.12a If a replacement effect that modifies how a permanent enters the battlefield requires a choice, that choice is made before the permanent enters the battlefield.
614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities.
603.6a Enters-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent enters the battlefield. These are written, "When [this object] enters the battlefield, ..." or "Whenever a [type] enters the battlefield, ..." Each time an event puts one or more permanents onto the battlefield, all permanents on the battlefield (including the newcomers) are checked for any enters-the-battlefield triggers that match the event.
603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that's not a card the next time a player would receive priority.
603.3d The remainder of the process for putting a triggered ability on the stack is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2c-d. If a choice is required when the triggered ability goes on the stack but no legal choices can be made for it, or if a rule or a continuous effect otherwise makes the ability illegal, the ability is simply removed from the stack.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Catan setup order different than playing order
When I get with my friends to play Catan (normal Settlers or Catan), we first roll the dice to decide who is going to put the settlement first.
The one that got the highest number goes first, the second highest number goes second and so on. When everyone finished their first settlements the order goes backward, which means the one with the smallest number puts the second settlement first and so on until the one with the highest number.
But at this point, everybody is already seated so we are not going to change seats to have the same order as we established our settlements, so what we do is, the one with the highest rolled number goes first and then the game continues to the right of that player.
I have 2 questions:

Are we playing correctly according to the rules?
If not (and this is a house rule), how does this procedure affect the game?

What’s with the downvotes? This site sure doesn’t want new contributors I guess

Having downvoted many a question in my day (but not this one), I would guess it's because this is not a useful question. What do the Catan rules say? Are you following those rules?

I've also down voted many over time if I think its to broad or opinion based.  The above question was asking about a specific issue to which an non opinion based answer could be given.  I'm sure we've all misread or misinterpreted a rule at some point that theres no harm asking a question if things don't seem quite right.

Welcome to the site; hope you aren't off-put by getting a couple of down-votes right away! I don't think there's an issue with the fact that the answer can be found in the rulebook... the vast majority of our rules questions are answered by quoting the rulebook. If I had to guess, I would say the downvotes are because you said "The one that got the highest number goes first, the second highest number goes second and so on" but did not give any explanation for where you got that idea from. It's never a good idea to do that system in any game that plays in order around the table.

I think you have got how you work out start player wrong.
You said "the second highest number goes second and so on." The rules do not state this.
Looking at rules here it says :-

Each player rolls both dice. The player who rolls highest is the
starting player and begins.  The starting player places a settlement
on an open intersection of his choice. He places a road adjacent to
this settlement.  The other players then follow clockwise. Everyone
places 1 settlement and 1 adjoining road.

So whoever rolls highest is the start player.  All other dice rolls are irrelevant.
As an example for you imagine for players sat clockwise around a table A, B, C and D.
A rolls 11, B rolls 2, C rolls 8 and D rolls 4.
Player A rolled highest and placed the first settlement.  Player B is next clockwise and places next.  The fact Player B rolled the lowest number is irrelevant as the dice roll was for start player and not the turn order.  The player C, the D.  Then D again and back anticlockwise, C, B and finally A.
Settlers of Catan is not a game where the turn order changed during the game (such as say Caylus or Power Grid).  So you only need to randomly select a start player.  You do not need to randomly select the whole player order.
In my mind the point of selecting starting locations ABCDDCBA is to try and minimise disadvantage for selecting before other players by letter the player placing last get first pick of second settlement location.   If they placed them ABCDABCD then player D would be at a huge disadvantage.

Part 1
You are not playing correctly according to the rules.  You are supposed to go in order (followed by reverse order) of seating for setup, not dice rolls.  Only the highest roller matters.
Part 2
Implementing this as a house rule would have a minimal effect on the game.  The important thing about the setup is that you go in the reverse order for the second settlement, which you are still doing.  This house rule doesn't change who goes first.  So, the largest possible difference is that the person who goes last in setup can go second in the game.
Going last for setup can be very strong.  In my experience, there are typically only 5 or 6 decent settlement spots on a random board (this is just anecdotal; I don't have hard data).  Thus, the person who goes last has the advantage of getting decent spots for both starting settlements.  The person who goes last in setup has the additional advantage of getting to coordinate their starting settlements with no intervening action by other players.  Thus, they can take two spots that work well together, either in having a 2:1 port and solid production of the resources of that port, or having a solid diversity of resources and/or numbers.
We also need to analyze what going second vs fourth in the main game means in terms of advantage.  Given each person gets resources from everyone's rolls, the only thing that really matters is when people have opportunity to build.  This is much harder to analyze.  Where this matters the most is if two players are fighting for a road spot right out of setup.  In my opinion, that the person who went last in setup also goes last in play is by design, as it gives every other player a chance to challenge one of their double settlements on road placement.  If the player who went last in setup went second in the main game, it would, in my opinion, only strengthen their advantage in setup.
In conclusion, I think this house rule can give a slight advantage to the player who goes last in setup.  I believe this player is already at an advantage, but if that's not true in your experience, you may want to use this rule.  I don't see any other interesting consequences of this change.

You did a much better job explaining my problem with this house rule.

Absolutely agree with this analysis. The last player to place settlements not only has the advantage of two decent spots and the knowledge of exactly which two spots they'll get, they also have the advantage of picking which of the two spots' starting resources they want. Last-to-place but second-to-go would indeed be better than last-to-place and last-to-go.

If I understand your question correctly you are asking if using a different order to place settlements then turn order would affect the game any.  I agree with the first answer that you are playing wrong according to the rules.
On the second question, it would could affect the placement of roads and settlements because if I place in the 4th position but play 2nd I might be able to set it up to cut off the road from another player first settlement.  This would make that player either have to use the second settlement to claim that location or not have a chance of claiming that route without using there second placement.
So in conclusion I would start playing by the normal rules since they are actually very balance in how they do setup.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Stealing a Soul Seizer
I was in control of a Soul Seizer that I cast. An Act of Treason, which states "gain control of target creature until end of turn", was used to take my Soul Seizer from me. My opponent then attacked and damaged me with it, chose to transform it, and then took one of my other creatures, and the Seizer became an enchantment. What happens here? Does it return to me immediately because it's no longer a creature and the effect granting control targeted a creature. Does it remain where it's at (in my opponents control) permanently because it became something else in his possession. Or does it return to me when the effect ends even though it's no longer a creature.
I believe it comes back because the effect ends, but my opponent felt he should keep it because it became something else while under his possession. I couldn't find an answer and I would be curious to know the specific rulings. (I let him keep it because it didn't matter and I defeated him anyway)

The Soul Seizer remains an enchantment, but you regain control of it (at the end of the turn). Nothing in the rules about the transform ability says it becomes a different permanent, even though it changes types.

701.27. Transform
701.27a To transform a permanent, turn it over so that its other face is up. Only permanents represented by double-faced cards can transform. (See rule 711, “Double-Faced Cards.”)

Since it now enchants one of your own creatures, it's effectively useless. However, you can't use it anymore on your opponent's creatures, so it's definitely a smart move from your opponent. Just not that smart ...

The game only checks if the target is valid when the spell is cast, and again when the spell resolves. If those checks are satisfied, then then Act of Treason creates a continuous effect that changes control of the object, no matter what it happens to be. The continuous effect still works even if the object no longer matches the criteria of that allowed the object to be targeted initially.
Enchant Thing, Equip Thing and Fortify Thing are different. If the object no longer matches the quality, the Aura/Equipment/Fortification falls off.


text:
Bang! Elimination Award For Henry Block and Backfire
Two similar questions:
If an outlaw with 1 health left targets another player and that player plays backfire which causes the outlaw to be eliminated, does the player who played backfire draw 3 cards?
If an outlaw with 1 health left targets Henry Block with a Panic and Henry Block's ability causes the outlaw to be eliminated, does Henry Block draw 3 cards?

The FAQ says:

Q05.  Who  is  considered  to  be  responsible  of  the  elimination  of  a  player  with  cards  like Indians! and Gatling?
A.  Unlike  the  Dynamite,  the  player  who  played  the  Gatling  or  the  Indians!  is  considered  to  be  responsible of the elimination of a player. All special actions due to this elimination apply to him (for example, if he just killed an Outlaw this way, he draws the 3 cards reward).

Based on this, it appears that any time a player's card or ability directly causes the elimination of another player, the player is responsible for the elimination (and draws the outlaw bounty if the eliminated player was an outlaw).  Thus, both Backfire and Henry Block's ability would allow a player to draw three cards if that player eliminates an outlaw using them.


text:
Monopoly Deal Just Say No
Can multiple players play Just Say No on the same card?  For example:
Player A: Rent.
Player B: Just Say No on the Rent.
Player A: Just Say No on Player B's Just Say No.
Resolves.
Player C: Just Say No on the Rent.

Interesting. Note that it matters who played the JSN because the player that plays it can choose to only immunize themselves (as opposed to all players) from the card against which it is played. (I don't know the rules, and I'm too tired to look them up right now.)

Assuming Player B could play Just Say No in that situation, it will be legal for Player C.  However, this is a big assumption.
The problem is that you have waded into the extreme grey area of Monopoly Deal rules.  Monopoly deal has a woefully incomplete rules framework and is missing the all-important official Errata and FAQ document.  monopolydealrules.com has many opinions on the game and how it should be played, but has the double downside of being nether official nor definitive.
So let's dig into how Just Say No works in general, with what precious little we have to go on.  The text of the card is:

Just Say No!  Use any time when an action card is played against you.  Play into the center to use.

There is also the "Cards in more detail" section of the rulebook, which says

Just Say No:
Use this card at any time to cancel the effect when another player plays any action card against you.  If that player has another Just Say No card, they can use it to cancel yours... sorry!

The rules clarification is helpful, because it means that Just Say No cancels the whole card and not just the aspect of the card that harms you.  The remaining question is what types of cards can be affected by Just Say No.
There are two possible readings:

"Played against you" is read strictly as cards that affect one player in particular.  To put that in Magic the Gathering terms, a card must target one player or a card belonging to that player in order to be eligible for Just Say No (i.e. Just Say No is the equivalent of Rebuff the Wicked).  This means Just Say No only works on any-color Rent cards (because they target one player), Deal Breaker, Sly Deal, Debt Collector, Deal Breaker, and Just Say No itself.

We take the looser definition of "played against you" to mean Just Say No can be used on any card that directly affects you negatively, thus adding the following to the list of valid targets: It's My Birthday and 2-color Rent cards.

In the case of interpretation 1, your question is moot because Just Say No can't be played on a 2-color Rent card.
In the case of interpretation 2, there is nothing preventing multiple people from playing Just Say No on the same card.  If the first Just Say No was negated by one from the original player, than anyone (including player B in your example) could play another one to try to negate the original card.
My play group uses interpretation 1.  monopolydealrules.com suggests interpretation 2.

I believe that what you described can happen.
As noted at http://monopolydealrules.com some people play that a JSN card cancels the targeted action for all players but more commonly people play that it protects only the player who played the JSN.
If playing the first option then I would argue that you would have to declare you JSN before any player paid rent. However the situation described could then become:

Player A: Rent
Player B: JSN on Rent
Player A: JSN on JSN
Player C: JSN on Rent
No-one plays rent

If playing the second interpretation of the rules then a similar series of events could occur with the following outcome:

Player A: Rent
Player B: JSN on Rent
Player A: JSN on JSN
Player B: Pays Rent
Player C: JSN on Rent
Player C does not pay rent

As with many circumstances in monopoly deal the rules don't seem to explicitly cover this situation so it's best to make sure all players understand the rules the same way before you begin.

How is it that Player C can play Just Say No on Player A's Just Say No in your first example?  Player A's Just Say No is played against one of Player B's cards not Player C's.

@Zags is right. I have ammended my answer to reflect thier comment.

We had this exact scenario happen. Which it was viewed 2 different ways. The first is how you all described above. The second: Player A: rent card. Player B and C has to determine if they will play a JSN or pay before Player A can use the JSN to counter. It's deemed to still be 1 action between multiple players so therefore saying JSN to Player B and then Player A reacting, Player C has the upper hand to know that it can not be countered.


text:
Would "destroying" Wurmcoil Engine prevent its tokens from being created?
I attacked with Wurmcoil Engine and my friend blocked with Stinkweed Imp which has the ability "Whenever Stinkweed Imp deals combat damage to a creature, destroy that creature." My friend argues that it destroys Wurmcoil Engine and does not "die" and is instead moved directly into the graveyard. I argue that the tokens will still be created because the creature hits the graveyard and no matter how it got there, it still counts as a "death" so it gets the tokens. We're still confused, what's the rule?

Destroying Wurmcoil Engine will definitely cause it to create tokens.  Destroying something causes it to go to the graveyard, and "when Wurmcoil Engine dies" means "when Wurmcoil Engine is put in the graveyard from the battlefield":

701.7a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owner's graveyard.
700.4. The term dies means "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield."

On top of that, destroying Wurmcoil Engine is the most common cause of its tokens being created.  Your friend is probably thinking of "destroying" a creature as something different from "dealing it lethal damage", but dealing lethal damage to a creature literally causes that creatrue to be destroyed:

704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed.

This rule is really important because it is why "indestructible" prevents creatures from dying to lethal damage.
If you want to prevent Wurmcoil Engine from creating tokens, you need to do one of the following:

Have Wurmcoil go somewhere other than the graveyard, such as with Path to Exile or Unsummon
Remove Wurmcoil's abilities, such as with Ovinize
Prevent the trigger from resolving, such as with Trickbind

You forgot the easiest way to prevent Wurmcoil from creating tokens: concede.

@corsiKa I would argue that conceding is just one mechanism of preventing the trigger from resolving (as the game ends).  Door to Nothingness actually works better, because conceding doesn't prevent the trigger in multiplayer.

My comment was a tad tongue in cheek - I've seen more than one snap-scoop to a resolved wurmcoil, especially when it was still in standard!

@corsiKa Its also a valid point.  I did list Door to Nothingess as a way to counter uncountable spells over here: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/24134/9999, but in that case, it was mechanically different from the other things in the list.

Destroying Wurmcoil Engine triggers its ability

700.4. The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.”

Anything that causes a creature or planeswalker to move from the battlefield to the graveyard will trigger "dies" effects.
If you want to avoid the trigger you need to use a card that moves the creature to another zone instead,  such as Disintegrate.

Maybe use "Disintegrate" instead of "Annihilating Fire" (given Wurmcoil has 6 toughness)

@Zags excellent suggestion

Wurmcoil Engine will die in this scenario, so you'll get the tokens. From the Comprehensive Rules:

701.7. Destroy
701.7a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owner's graveyard.
700.4. The term dies means "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield."

From the comprehensive rules:

Destroy
To move a permanent from the battlefield to its owner's graveyard. See rule 701.7, "Destroy."
Dies
A creature or planeswalker "dies" if it is put into a graveyard from the battlefield. See rule 700.4.

So for creatures, "dies" and "is destroyed" are synonymous. In fact, if you look at the version of Wurmcoil Engine from Scars of Mirrodin, it even uses "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield" rather than the shorthand "dies". So you do get the tokens.

It's not accurate to say that the two words are synonyms. The glossary overgeneralizes somewhat here. It's possible for a creature to be destroyed without dying (e.g. if a replacement effect exiles it) and it's possible for a creature to die without being destroyed (e.g. if it dies from having 0 toughness).


text:
Can a creature with hexproof be targeted by spells that target all creatures?
examples:
Blazing Volley,
Fumigate,
Last One Standing.

Those spells don't target, so the answer is yes. See https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/43995/which-spells-or-abilities-are-affected-by-things-that-care-about-targeting

@paxtonius your question is slightly ambiguous.  As currently written, it appears to be a duplicate of the one liked by Glorfindel; if this is the case, it will be closed as a duplicate.  However, if your question is (also) about cards with abilities such as overload or replicate, then I believe it is not a duplicate, but you should edit the question to reflect this by including examples such as Electrickery and/or Gigadrowse.

It's important to note that Last One Standing does not target either, choose is not the same as target in Magic the Gathering, and "choose" is not stopped by hexproof or shroud.

Cards that affect "all creatures" (such Blazing Volley, Fumigate, and Last One Standing) are not stopped by hexproof because they don't actually target anything (to target, something must literally say the word "target"; the "choose a creature" in Last One Standing still doesn't count as targeting).
Even spells with overload (like  Electrickery) won't target if cast with overload because overload changes them to not target.
However, spells that do target a bunch of creatures, such as spell with replicate (ex. Gigadrowse) or strive are stopped by hexproof.  The difference is that these spells do literally say the word "target".
The relevant rules are:

114.1a An instant or sorcery spell is targeted if its spell ability identifies something it will affect by using the phrase “target
  [something],” where the “something” is a phrase that describes an
  object and/or player.
114.1c An activated ability is targeted if it identifies something it will affect by using the phrase “target [something],” where the
  “something” is a phrase that describes an object and/or player.
114.1d A triggered ability is targeted if it identifies something it will affect by using the phrase “target [something],” where the
  “something” is a phrase that describes an object and/or player.

Not sure why you called out overload spells here.  If you don't pay the overload cost, it is just like any other spell that targets.  If you pay the overload cost, it no longer targets and thus would no longer be stopped by hexproof.  (This might be worth calling out, because it would be different than replicate.)

@Becuzz good point

@zags may be worth contrasting "target" with "choose" as it exists on Last One Standing

Re "to target, something must literally say the word "target"", Two other things do: Aura spells, and keyword abilities that represent abilities that target.

Hexproof protects against spells using the keyword "target".
If the card does not use the word target, Hexproof will not protect against it. This includes all three spells in the question: none of them use "target", and so Hexproof offers no protection.
This also applies to all spells which use words like "all" or "each": they don't "target", so Hexproof does nothing. Even if it may seem a natural shortcut to assume that something that affects "all" of something "targets" them all, technically/ruleswise it's a completely different situation. This includes cases where a spell is overloaded to affect "each" creature, such as Electrickery. As the overloaded version no longer targets anything, it'll affect things with Hexproof.
As per gatherer:

Because a spell with overload doesn’t target when its overload cost is paid, it may affect permanents with hexproof or with protection from the appropriate color.


text:
Can you block with a creature and then sacrifice it?
I block a Territorial Allosaurus with a Brindle Boar. I sacrifice the Brindle Boar. Does the Territorial Allosaurus still do damage to me?

Yes, that works; you won't take any damage, unless the Allosaurus somehow has trample. The Allosaurus remains a 'blocked' creature after the Boar is assigned to block it:

509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.

510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage.

After declaring blockers, before the combat damage step begins, there is an opportunity for both players to play instants or activate abilities like the Boar's.

The removed blocker won't deal damage either.

In the situation you describe, no combat damage is dealt because the Allosaurus is blocked.  Two things of note:

If you sacrifice your blocker, it won't deal combat damage (unless it has first strike or double strike)

If the attacker has trample, it will still deal damage to you.

The relevant rules are the following:

510.2. all combat damage that's been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. No player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the time combat damage is assigned and the time it's dealt.
509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature.
510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage.
702.19c If an attacking creature with trample is blocked, but there are no creatures blocking it when damage is assigned, all its damage is assigned to the player or planeswalker it's attacking.


text:
Can I equip Skullclamp on a creature I am sacrificing?
I have a "self-sacrificing" creature, such as Diligent Farmhand or Dawntreader Elk, and Skullclamp on the field.  Can I pay to sacrifice the creature and then in response equip Skullclamp, Or vice versa? I know in some cases the card may be gone but the trigger is still on the stack.

You picked two very, very good example cards as those two tend to illustrate when you can "get away" with this and when you cant.

It is possible to get the benefit of the creature's ability and the two-card draw from Skullclamp, but you have to do things in the right order and have a creature that can withstand a +1/-1.
There are a couple of rules concepts that are relevant here:

For the cards mentioned, sacrificing the creature is part of the cost.  You can tell because it appears before the colon (:)602.1a.  Paying a cost does not use the stack, so you can't "respond" to it.  As soon as you sacrifice the creature to pay the cost, it goes to the graveyard701.16a.
Creatures that have 0 toughness are put into the graveyard as a state-based action704.5f.  This condition is checked any time spell or ability resolves.

With this in mind, there are a couple of possible scenarios:

If you activate the creature's ability first, the creature is put in the graveyard as part of the cost.  This means you can't attempt to equip Skullclamp* while the creature's ability is on the stack - the creature is already gone.
If you Equip Skullclamp first, you have two options for timing your use of the creature's ability:

If you activate the creature's ability while Skullclamp's Equip is still on the stack, the creature is sacrificed before Skullclamp is equipped, so you won't get the two-card bonus.  (The Equip ability no longer has a valid target, so it fizzles.)
If you wait until after the Equip finishes, the result depends on how strong your creature is:

If the creature only has 1 toughness (like Diligent Farmhand), Skullclamp decreases its toughness to 0 and it will be put in the graveyard as a state-based action.  There is no opportunity to activate the creature's ability.
If the creature has more than 1 toughness, it will survive being Equipped with Skullclamp.  Its ability can then be activated, and you will get the two-card bonus when it is sacrificed.

So it is possible to pull off this combo with Dawntreader Elk, but not possible with Diligent Farmhand.**
*It's not generally possible to use the Equip ability like this anyway.  The Equip ability can only be used when you could cast a Sorcery.  There are ways around that, but they won't change this outcome.
**Unless you have some other way to boost its toughness or otherwise prevent Skullclamp from killing it.  There are always loopholes in Magic.

A note on your footnote: indestructible has no impact on whether Skullclamp's toughness change results in a creature dying.

It never fails.  If I forget to mention a corner case, somebody will call me out on it.  If I try to handle corner cases, I get something wrong. :)  Thanks for keeping me honest.

There is a footnote with "2" in the part about Diligent Farmhand dying, but it does not seem to refer to anything? There is also a "1" in the part about costs, which also doesn't seem to go anywhere.

@Erik It confused me too at first, but it seems to refer to the numbered list above.

@Erik - Angew is correct, I was intending to refer to the numbered list of rules.  On a second read through, it didn't make much sense and wasn't helpful.  I've removed them.

"If I forget to mention a corner case, somebody will call me out on it." Also, if the OP controls Rules Lawyer, then they can equip Diligent Farmhand with Skullclamp without it dying.

You can get both the land from the creature's ability and the card draw from Skullclamp with Dawntreader Elk, but not with Diligent Farmhand. The difference depends on the toughness of the creatures.
Dawntreader Elk normally has 2 toughness, so after you equip Skullclamp it still has 1, so it will still be alive. Then after you sacrifice it for the ability, you will draw the cards from the Skullclamp's ability.
Diligent Farmhand normally has only 1 toughness, so if you equip Skullclamp it will immediately die. You can't respond to the death by activating its ability, and if you respond to the equip ability, then the Skullclamp won't be attached when the creature dies. Similarly, even if you could activate the equip ability at instant speed, you wouldn't be able to activate it in response to the creature's ability because the sacrifice is part of the cost and the creature would be dead as soon as the ability is on the stack.

It depends.
You cannot equip the Skullclamp in response to anything, because equipping can only be done whenever you could normally cast a sorcery. Also, the creature you sacrifice is sacrificed and therefore dies as part of the cost, not the resolution of the ability. So even if you found some instant speed way to equip the Skullclamp (there are ways to do it, like Auriok Windwalker), once the creature's ability is on the stack, the creature is gone.
However, you can equip the Skullclamp before sacrificing the creature. Some times.
If you equip, and in response sacrifice the creature, then the creature will die before Skullclamp was attached, so you won't get to draw cards.
If you let the equip resolve, then the +1/-1 effect applies to your creature. If, at the end of equip resolution, your creature has 0 or less toughness, it will die before you have a chance to activate any abilities. You will draw cards, but don't have time to sacrifice the creature.
If, on the other hand, the creature survives the Skullclamp, then you're good to go.
Short version: Yes to the Elk, no to the Farmhand, assuming no other effects affect their toughness.


text:
Twilight Imperium’s ‘Spend resources’ Objectives
How do one score objectives that require spending resources, like ‘Erect a Monument’ (‘Spend 8 resources’) or ‘Sway the Council’ (‘Spend 8 influence’)? Do you have to spend it specifically to fulfill the requirements of this objective or does any type of spending (building ships, for example) count?

You must spend these resources specifically to score the objective.  You have to make a choice between spending the resources on units/buildings and getting points to win.
These objectives are status phase objectives, meaning they can only be scored in the status phase.  Thus spending resources to build ships wouldn't apply because it happens during the action phase.  Furthermore, at the step in the status phase when you can score objectives, objectives are the only thing you can spend resources on.
Support from the rules reference:

52.3 Each objective card indicates the phase during which a player
  can score that objective—either the status phase or action phase.
52.10 Players can score some objectives by spending resources,
  influence, or tokens, as described by the objective card. To
  score such an objective, a player must pay the specified cost at
  the time indicated on the card.
70.1 [STATUS PHASE] STEP 1—SCORE OBJECTIVES: Following initiative order,
  each player may score up to one public objective and one secret
  objective that can be fulfilled during the status phase. To score
  an objective, he must fulfill the requirements on the card; if he
  does, he gains a number of victory points indicated on the card.


text:
Is it possible to wait for some cards to leave the stack to use them for delve?
Imagine the situation:

I am at 2 life;
I have five Forests untapped in the battlefield;
I have 4 Giant Growth and 1 Become Immense in my hand;
I have a Brainstorm in my graveyard;
I have a 1/1 creature with no abilities

My opponent has 19 life;
My opponent has a 2/2 creature with no abilities.

I attack with my creature without casting any cards.
My opponent doesn't block.
Can I cast the 4 Giant Growths (+12/+12) using four of my five Forests and then cast the Become Immense (giving me a total of +18/+18) delving the four Giant Growth and the Brainstorm using the last Forest?

Yes. Short answer.
Long answer:
After blockers are declared, active player (you) gains priority, at this point you can either pass priority or play a spell or activate abilities that work at instant speed.

You cast Giant Growth, pay the cost and place the spell on the stack.
You then pass priority for your opponent to respond, they have no answers and pass priority back.
The spell resolves
Active player gains priority

It is important to know you gain priority every time you decide to go from one phase to another as well.
So yes after you have cast each giant growth individually, you can then cast become immense for the win

116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.

I didn't downvote, but the big paragraph about the mechanics of the modern dredge deck probably isn't helping, as it's mostly not relevant, or at least not clear how it's relevant.

idea was to explain the priority between phases...

@murgatroid99 I've edited it now...I would hazzard a guess on who downvoted it (he/she does so with my comments every time)

@fireshark519 it all balances out in the end. Also If you do have a serial down-voter the system will eventually recognize them and void their votes on your posts. (meta)

Yes you can.
If your opponent has already declined to block, you are in the declare blockers step.  The step following this is the combat damage step, so in order for these spells to change the amount of combat damage you deal, you need cast them in the declare blockers step.  The relevant rule is that declare blockers step only ends when all players (including you) decide you have nothing left you want to do:

500.2 A phase or step in which players receive priority ends when the stack is empty and all players pass in succession.  Simply having the stack become empty doesn’t cause such a phase or step to end; all players have to pass in succession with the stack empty. Because of this, each player gets a chance to add new things to the stack before that phase or step ends.

Thus, you can let the 4 Giant Growths finish resolving (letting them go to the graveyard) and then use them to pay the delve cost on Become Immense all within the declare blockers step.

Yes.
In fact, you've probably done it a million times before:

Cast a creature spell.
Wait for it to resolve.
Cast another creature spell.

There are four ways a card can be removed from the stack:

When it's countered or otherwise removed by the effect of some other spell or ability.
When it's about to resolve, but all of its targets have become illegal.
As part of resolving,

By its own effect. (e.g. Teferi's Protection)
As the last step of resolving.

After each of those, players always gain priority (though the other player may gain priority first).

116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.


text:
Monopoly cheaters edition railways and "road blocks"
My family arguments regarding block card and railway station.
The rules state when you roll the dice and you land on railway station you have to move straight to the next nearest railway station.
But when I landed on a station my opponent had a card that said "road blocked: players passing this property must stop and pay rent to the owner" before the next station.
Does this mean that I have to stop there or not?
Because the rules say when you land on Railway station you have to move to the next nearest station should I also skip the "Road blocked" card and go straight to the next station?

Turns out there is a 'cheaters edition'  I've taken house rule tag off and updated the tags.  https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/254617/monopoly-cheaters-edition.

@Mary Could you help clarify question as I don't think its clear what your asking.  eg. "it said when..." what it 'It'?

Found an overview of the game for those interested, but @MaryPardey, we need to know what you mean by "it" in "it said". do you mean the rules booklet?

Does the rule about moving to the next railway say "Advance to", or "Go directly to"?  (In other words, if you passed Go, would you collect $200?)

NO. You don't have to stop. When it says go straight to the next station, you can not be affected by anything else unless you pass go of cause, in which case you will get 200 bucks. You definitely do not have to stop in another's property. Think of it as you are teleporting to your target.

A) this answer would be improved by rule references, and B) if you're teleporting directly there, why do you get $200?

@ArcanistLupus Consider $200 as a special rule. Sorry about those mistakes. This is my 1st answer. Can you edit to improve?

Unfortunately, I know nothing about Monopoly Cheaters Edition.  I'm afraid you're on your own.

@ArcanistLupus Someone will edit it then...

This question has gone unanswered for over a year because none of the regular SE members are familiar with the game.  If we had the rule references, we'd have answered it already.  You are perfectly capable of supporting your own answer.


text:
Can other pieces capture a threatening piece and prevent a checkmate?
Total beginner here. I have a board setup that an app I'm using to learn described as a "checkmate" -- see below (the white pawn just moved below the rook and is threatening the king):

If I were playing black, I know I cannot capture the pawn with the king, as I would placing my king in check.
But: Why can't I use the rook or the queen (right next to the threatening pawn) to capture the pawn and get out of the check?
For example:

Keep the king where it is.
Use the rook to capture the threatening pawn.

Note that there is a specific Stack Exchange site for [chess.se].

Chess is also a boardgame and we welcome these questions here.

@DavidRicherby True but it has long been decided that chess questions ARE still on topic here, as chess is a board game. The same is true for Poker questions which also have their own SE. So long as the questions fit other conditions for being on topic they belong here too.

@Andrew I never suggested that the question is off-topic here. All I did was point out the existence of a specialist site. I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Yes, you can capture the attacking piece with any one of your pieces, as long as you get out of the check.
But in this case, the king is also attacked by the rook. So, you are checkmate.

The real question is how did you get into this situation.
I almost think the rook was already there but the both of you missed it.
By the way, I like it that you try to learn this game.

These are simulated cases ;) I'm using a free Android app called "Chess Tactics Pro" which consists of chess "puzzles" on 3 different levels of difficulty. The case I described in this post is level "easy", puzzle no. 14. The idea here was to end the game in a single move.

@ToonKrijthe presumably the pawn got to where it is by capturing a piece  (although why it wasn't captured before that point I can't explain )

The position would make some sort of sense if the pawn was previously on g6 and captured something on f7. Black pxg6 on the previous move doesn't fix the problem, since if white retakes with the rook on g1, either black will soon lose his queen or white can play qh5.

From another beginner's standpoint: Isn't the simple and stupid way to solve questions like this to simply play until the king is captured? That is, you pretend that the king is a figure like any other except that you lose when it is captured, so you must prevent that. If you cannot, you have lost. That obivates the need to recognize a double check etc. and to understand rules like "you cannot make a move that doesn't get you out of check" -- you can try but it won't save the king, and you lose.

@PeterA.Schneider You do not want to play until the king is captured because it muddles a key rule of chess: You are forced to move your king out of check and into a safe position if possible. By introducing this new rule, you allow moves that may be otherwise illegal, such as moving the king in to danger or failing to escape from check. It does nothing to clarify the rules for beginners, but would actually introduce further confusion.

@Master_Yogurt It appears only to simplify rules to me: Feel free to move the king into check; then you lose.

@ArcanistLupus No logically that pawn should not get that far in a board this full, but it would have to take a piece in F7, and the only piece that makes sense for that is the missing black knight, it could possibly have been a pawn, if the pawn at f5 got into the f column through capture, but the knight, not being able to take the pawn, is more likely.

This is called a double check. You're checked by both the pawn and the rook.  Blocking, or capturing with a piece other than the king would only deal with one of those problems, so the only ways to deal with double check are to capture with the king (which you can't, here, because the pawn is protected) or to move the king some other way (which you can't, because both squares you could move to are covered by the bishop).
Double checks are very powerful, because they can only be dealt with by moving the king, and you don't have to cover much to prevent the king from being able to do that.

Capturing with the king moves it, so I wouldn't consider those separate options.

@jpmc26 I they're distinct enough to be worth a separate mention, even though one is a special case of the other.

I'm not disputing that. However, the important aspect of the capture is the fact that it moves the King to a safe location. I think that wording it as a separate option de-emphasizes this fact, which reduces the clarity of the answer. I was suggesting being more explicit about the relationship between the two.

@jpmc26 OK -- I've edited to "capture with the king [...] or move the king some other way."

Worth noting, I think, that "double check" is not a special concept in the rules of chess. It's rather a useful name players have come up with to describe a situation that falls out of other rules. If the king is attacked by two pieces at once, either it is checkmate or the king must be moved. This is not because there is any specific rule about what to do in double check, but simply because we can show that any other choice would be illegal, based on the usual rules about check.

I've marked up this board a bit to show why this is checkmate, showing all the attacks that make it one. Lets go through them one by one:

The pawn - The black king is currently in check by the white pawn on the diagonal. The king would need to move away, or the pawn be taken to remove this.
The rook - The black king is in check because of the white rook at the bottom of the same column. The king would have to move out of that column, another piece would need to block, or the rook be taken to remove that check.
The bishop - The black king can't move into the corner to get out of check because the white bishop is threatening that square.
The knight - The black king can't take the pawn to get out of check by the rook and pawn because the knight is threatening that square.

There's no single move here that will get the king out of check. If the pawn is taken by another piece, the rook is still holding the king in check. If the king moves to the corner, out of check by the rook and pawn, he is now in check by the bishop and if the king takes the pawn, moving out of check from the rook at the same time he is in check by the knight.

There are three ways to get out of check (including checkmate).  You can...

Run away
Block the check
Capture the checking piece

There are two checks here (pawn and rook).  If the king runs to either empty square, the bishop (and in one case, the rook) can capture.  If the king captures the pawn, the knight can capture.  That takes away #1.
You can block the rook check (with the queen or bishop) but not the pawn check.  That takes care of #2.
You can capture the pawn (with the rook or queen or king), but you can't capture the rook, so that takes care of #3.
So, it is checkmate.
If the white pawn wasn't checking, or if the white knight couldn't recapture, it wouldn't be checkmate (you could block the check or take the pawn with the king).  If the white rook wasn't checking, it wouldn't be checkmate (take the pawn with the rook or queen).  It takes both checks in this case to produce checkmate.
This is a rather complicated checkmate.  In my experience, most beginners would not be able to understand it, nor would they be able to find the move that produced it (the pawn capturing something to give check, which also produces a discovered check with the rook).  Don't give up on the game because the app gave you a rather nasty position.  Most real life chess is simpler than that.

For total beginners, it may be best to play chess without checks and just play to capture the king. Whoever captures the king first wins, even if your king is being threatened.
I say this because it is difficult to understand check at first and playing until the king is dead is the same as playing chess regularly, except if you were to miss a move that kills the king or someone accidentally puts themselves into check on their move.
In this case, there is no place the king can go or capture that won't be captured next move. King takes pawn, knight takes king. King moves to long black diagonal, bishop takes king, Something else attacks pawn, rook takes king. Something blocks rook, pawn takes king.

While this may not be how chess really works, I also find that, when I coach chess and have beginners (especially kids, but not only kids), the concept of capturing the king does make a lot more sense to them.  I do mention that the game stops before the king is captured, but when they ask me if it is checkmate, we look at every possible move to see if the king gets captured or not, and the kids then decide if it is checkmate or not.

@DavidRicherby The answer does claim more than that, but he is a new poster here (and on other stack exchange sites), so I'm being nice. Besides, he's a better chess player than I am, and while I can help beginners by simplifying the game, once the question gets too far advanced, it is up to better chess players than I to answer, so I want to encourage him to stick around

Kaiwen, your second point was better than the first, and deserves to stand on its own.  You may want to edit your answer and cross out the first point so future readers don't get confused, and let the second point be the main point of the answer.

Sorry for the misinformation, I haven't played with those rules since I was a kid, and it was not with FIDE (it was either in CFC or USCF) at locals where arbiter's might not exactly follow the rules 100%. I have changed the post to reflect this.


text:
Do non-random alternative methods of choosing a starting player actually WORK, and if so which?
So I've been noticing that there's a vogue in gaming recently for the starting player to be chosen by some method other than simple lot.  I'm wondering if this is a good fashion, or if it's just getting silly.  Here's a representative list of some of the starting-player-choosing mechanism I can think of off the top of my head:

Youngest player first (e.g. St Petersburg)
Player with the longest beard first (Once Upon A Time)
Player with the pointiest ears (Small World)
Most well-travelled player (Ticket To Ride)
Nicest player (Dungeon Lords)
Player who lives closest to water (Le Havre)

Others can probably add a few examples of their own.  My question is: are any of these actually superior, on a long-term basis, to just choosing at random?
I do like "youngest player first" in games where the first player has an advantage, on the assumption that if you're playing with children it's nice to give them a little help - but on the other hand, if the youngest player at your table is in their 30s and a boardgames fanatic, the rule may end up hurting more than it helps.
Likewise, in Ticket To Ride the "best travelled-player" is charming to start with, but can get annoying as the same person who spent 3 months seeing Europe by train goes first forever.  And this is before we get onto largely subjective quantities like ear-pointiness and niceness (in all fairness to Dungeon Lords, I think that's a joke and really you're meant to end up choosing the start player randomly).
Are these rules mostly just there to be cute - and quickly ignored - or should be follow them religiously?

What you should do is pick completely subjective criteria like "best-looking player first"; those are the most fun to work out

For hard-to-work-out, it's hard to beat Android's "player who's read the most science fiction".  In most groups this is either runaway obvious, or the cause of hours of conversation by itself.  Of course, going first isn't much advantage in Android.

Just to add to your list of cute-but-probably-too-stable methods, I like that of Pandemic: "The player who was most recently sick goes first."

@Mark: This is actually my favorite rule I've encountered. One of the very few that can change in a fixed group.

In 7 Ages players bid for starting player.  This can get interesting because in some games the most-advantagous position is second or third, not first.

Don't forget Munchkin's starting player rules: "Decide who goes first by rolling the dice and arguing about the results and the meaning of this sentence and whether the fact that a word seems to be missing any effect."

Play a game of 7 Wonders (where play is simultaneous) and winner goes first. Or play a game of Get bit (also simultaneous).

I just ran across a new one in Lord of Waterdeep: "The player who has most recently been to another city goes first".  I can see this having more variety than the Ticket to Ride rule, but possibly more disputes in what constitutes a city.

I'm a fan of Forbidden Desert's starting player rule: Thirstiest player goes first.

It's not quite an answer, but still I'm amazed that this question has been up for so many years without anybody mentioning Chwazi yet!

@Quuxplusone : Has anyone identified the etymology of the name «Chwazi» as «Choisis», the imperative of the french verb «Choisir» ( To Choose ) ?

I did a big hecking edit, please roll.it back if you need to.

In Dancing Eggs "Whoever jumps highest may start and throw the red action dice."  I half-heartedly jumped saying I was worried about hitting my head on the low-hanging ceiling tiles.  Friends are like "Nah... you gotta at least try."  "Okay then I guess..."  I then proceeded to jump and knocked one of the tiles loose with my head.  No lasting harm done but all other players laughed and immediately conceded first turn to me and fondly remember it to this day.

@Quuxplusone An app that requires all players to touch the same cellphone screen? Surely it did not age well in the past two years.

We use Start Player every time.  That gives us the fun and twisted subjective criteria that is such a blast to work out, but also injects the truly random so that no one player continuously gets picked as the starting player for any particular game.  Plus, the cards are hilarious!
It is the best of both worlds.

Alas, it seems the game has gone out of print; eBay is the best source for this at the moment, and even then it's not common.

@Paul: There are Android and iOS versions of Start Player available.

Start player has been reprinted, but the Android app called "Start Player" is just a spin-the-bottle app.

I'll go first.
The game's all set up, people are chatting about random things, and when nobody's looking, you decide to go first.  I play in a somewhat casual group, and it's surprising how well this works.  No dice to roll, no questions to ask, just go.  If you don't like it, then you can go first next time.  ;-)

I can't remember what game it was, but there's at least one where the rules are "the boldest player goes first", which seems to be exactly this.

I'm pretty sure we got this idea from Fluxx, where it's the official rule for starting the game.

As a nice side-effect, this encourages people to start playing ASAP.

This may help in games where going first is a good thing, but games exist where going last, and seeing what choices others have made, can be the advantage, and no one would want to go first in those. I cannot think of examples off the top of my head at the moment.

@Andrew - then use the "You'll go first" variant

Dominion has the "player sitting to the left of the player who won the previous game" mechanic.  Since play passes to the left, this means the person who won the previous game goes last.
This also means every other player has a chance (on turn 3) to play attack cards before the player who won previously.  Or to buy up the last copies of a popular card (Lighthouse, Moat).

That seems like a pretty smart rule - although obviously it would work better in the scope of a single session than over a long period of time between games...

My issue with this is I have actually never seen a group playing dominion remain constant over multiple games. Players join or drop out if played at an event, or when played privately it tends to be a single game played, it is a long game.

This does have somewhat of a disadvantage in that it's impossible to start a game according to the rules if nobody in the group has ever played a game before. Surviving Mars's version has even more of an issue in this regard: that explicitly refers to "the player who most recently won a game of Surviving Mars".

For games where being the starting player matters I favor plain an simple randomness. The "youngest player" rule is cute when you're 8. It's not so cute when you're 18 and have a twin was born half a minute after you. And at 28 it starts to get really silly.
As for upstream advantage, that's actually a pretty common effect. If this a serious problem in your group you'll have to find a solution for it outside the printed rules. Remember those are only suggestions. The only important thing is that everyone plays by the same rules...

But there are a few games with an interesting spin on this
El Grande
Who's the starting player at the beginning of the game is largely irrelevant because it changes in every turn.
Every player has a stack of cards numbered from 1 to 13. Once you've used a card you can't use it again. The starting player chooses a card first and then it goes around the table. The higher the number you played the sooner you get your turn. The lower the number you played the more cubes you get to play with. And the player with the lowest card becomes starting player in the next turn.
Mesopotamia
Everyone except the last player gets a disadvantage during their first turn. After that it's just one player after another and who went first is no longer important.

To answer your question, I don't like the non-random first player choices, because they either

Make the same person go first over and over again
Or the method it self has to be chosen at random, and in this case it is just a longer random choice

Our method of choice (it doesn't require any props and is quite fast):
Everyone at the same time "throws" 0-5 fingers on their hands. The number of fingers is summed up and counted in clockwise direction starting from previously chosen player (usually the one owning the game). The player on which the last count lands is the first player.
This method depends on random choices of all players so is quite random and quite unbiased. It replaces such mechanisms as "rock,paper,schissors" which have the disadvantage of possible ties.

If there are n players and each throws a number of fingers between 0 and n-1, and at least one player picks a number uniformly at random, then this selects a (uniformly) random starting player. Proof: let's say player 1 chooses at random. Sum up the numbers of the other players (2..n) and go that many spots round the table, to (let's call them) player k. Going a (uniformly) random number of spots (player 1's number, the only one left) from a particular player k is equivalent to simply choosing a (uniformly) random player. (A similar trick is used in some cryptography.)

Note that if n is less than 6, let's say it's 4, then 0 and 4 are equivalent, as are 1 and 5 (in general, divide by n and take the remainder). What should be chosen uniformly at random is the number of steps moved relative to the starting player—how many extra times you go round the table doesn't matter.

Model: all humans are likely to be bad at randomness, and in the same way. For simplicity, suppose that people roll an 8-sided die with values 0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, i.e. that 2 and 3 are twice as likely as each other number. By my eyeballing of the results of my calculations, generally the more players the greater the impact of non-uniformity. For 10 players, the most likely outcome is ~4% more likely than the least likely. At even greater skew (pip counts 0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5), it's still ~4% but a tiny smidgen greater. I'm okay with this for casual play—I should just be more random :-)

Chrononauts is one answer to your corollary question.  This is a pseudo-random start: first player is whoever guesses the time at a given mark most accurately.  This varies the player, but is definitely not purely random.  Good time sense is an advantage.  (Fair enough, in a time travel game.)

We always use our own method of choosing the starting player, regardless of what the rules say. To take your point about youngest player, I am 30, and the youngest player in our group, yet I probably have the highest win ratio. So, this would be unfair where the first player has an advantage.
Our method is simple, we roll a die. If we can't find a die, we take all the players' victory point piece, or worker (anything to identify the players colour), and throw it across the board. The furthest away from the thrower goes last, the closest first. Simple, easy and fair.
Of your list, I have only player Ticket to Ride and Le Havre, but we have never used most well travelled and lives closest to water (again I fear I would come first in these as well).

Youngest, best-travelled, possessor of a lovely waterfront view, and you also win all the boardgames - the rest of your group must hate you a bit! ;)

He/she probably also has the most pointy ears, gets sick a lot, is super nice, has a fantastic beard and sits to the left of himself.

I have a similar issue: I'm both the youngest person among the people that I regularly play games with, and my flat is literally built into a bridge over a river. I do, however, win implausibly rarely, so maybe we should start using those rules.

In our group, the person who just taught the game goes first. There are a couple of reasons for this:
1) New players get to see someone else's turn before they have to take their own.
2) The teacher get a reward for the work of teaching
3) Most of our games have a counter balance of some sort, so first player is not a huge advantage.

For new games we have a variation of that - the start player is the one that lets the most experienced players go first (so that the new players get to see a few people play their turns).

My group tend to ignore the specified instructions for picking a starting player* and tend to pick based on who's played before. If there are new players and there's no real penalty for going last, new players going last gives them an opportunity to pick up the game.
Conversely, if there is a huge advantage to going first and the rules are straightforward enough to understand from the start, we tend to let new players go first to counteract the disadvantage of never having played before.
*Although a running joke in our group is speculating what absurd condition there might be. Mystery Express? Who last solved a murder on a train?

"New player wants to go last" is a common enough phenomenon that it merits an auto+1 from me... Unconnectedly, the latest game I bought, Dungeon Petz, gives the starting player token to "the player who last fed a pet", which is a nice addition to the collection.

I often use to say that the person who is having his/her birthday next time. I bit like saying youngest/oldest player but it can still change, especially if its a new crowd of players.

I quite like that idea, although it could be a bit depressing if it was your birthday yesterday!

Very bad: (1) if two people have their birthdays close to each other, the second one will almost never be chosen; (2) the starting player will always be the same in a long streak of days.

Like i mentioned, this works best if the crowd of player changes. Of course it doesn't work so good if the same bunch of friends of family members playing every friday evening.

@Lo'oris: "Very bad" meaning better than most of the examples in the original question. :)

depends on the size group, theoretically, the "next birthday" should rotate moderately quickly if the group exceeds, say, 5. Then again, if they're all summer birthdays, that's no good.

I'd hate this. One of the people I play board games with multiple times a week was born the day before me. That means I'd get one day of being first all year.

For what it's worth, because most of the games originating in Germany are designed to be played by families, having the youngest player go first (in the case where going first is an advantage) or the oldest player go first (in the case where going first is a disadvantage) actually makes reasonable sense.
The rest of them are just for fun and work fine if you play a wide variety of games, but as noted are a problem if you play the same game multiple times in close temporal proximity.
Since all my gaming is with groups of adults, we always choose randomly, most commonly by grabbing one of each player's color marker (commonly score markers are already stacked up and waiting) and randomly drawing one.
In cases where the players don't have identifying markers (SmallWorld, for example), we either use a handy Spin-4-It (commonly one laying around, or I have one on my keychain):

Or since most of us have iPhones, the free Spin The Coke app:

A warning on Spin The Coke, though: at least in earlier versions the first spin always ends up at the same place. The second spin is random, though, so I just start a spin and then start the second spin immediately, no need to wait for the first to finish.

I'm a fan of Nuclear War. The owner of the game goes first. Always nice to provide a bennie for the person who bought your game.

It seems you're arguing against both subjective criteria and also randomness.  I seems in this case that you want some objective criteria.  If the game doesn't provide for such a thing you can use one among the your gaming group.  An obvious one is simply board gaming experience * experience with this board game.  It's generally easy to determine who's the best board gamer, and who's played the most.  In games with a first-turn advantage (an unbalanced game IMHO), just go in increasing order of experience.
To answer the other part of your question, the theme-based go-first do add to the game experience, but yes, they're meant to be thrown out when they get old.
Perhaps the best method I've seen to balance starting player is when the game provides a mechanism to determine this in-game as a tactical decision.  For example, Innovation has players simultaneously reveal a hard from their hand, and first alphabetically goes first.  This allows one to decide between the card they want to play, and the less desirable card that will allow the first turn.

I've seen at least one more rule which actually works well. Gold Mine-> Player who is most excited to play goes first. But in general, I just pick a way, dice roll or similar. The alternative methods aren't really random, I'd say they are there for entertainment in rules, and perhaps for playing for the first time or two, but not for long term use.

I don't know Gold Mine, but I'm pretty sure I've run across at least one game where the first player who call dibs on going first gets to go first.  Pretty good for indecisive groups, though not quite so good for games where going first is a disadvantage!

Gold mine is a pretty new game, see https://www.amazon.com/dp/0984450904?tag=httpwwwpearso-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0984450904&adid=0D2B2S2C00XYN478R4QK& and http://www.stratusgames.com/games/gold-mine

This doesn't help much the first time you play, but pretty standard rule whenever we play a bunch of the same game is winner goes last (assuming of course first is desirable).

To answer the question actually asked:
Most of the games that I know well where the start player is chosen non-randomly by some cutesy method are designed so that it doesn't actually matter who starts. This leaves room for the game designer to add something cute. In the end, even if it doesn't matter, someone needs to start, so you can do something that fits to the spirit of the game and helps people to "enter" the game right there with the first choice.
Given the wide variety of different choices, it's hard to say if these methods are superior. Define "superior". If you mean that they have a better impact on who will win, then the best they can do is not be worse than random choice, because books have been written about how random choice is the most fair decision if you don't have anything better, and as none of these methods are based on the actual performance of players, they certainly aren't "better" in any sense when it comes to predicting who needs an advantage.
But if "superior" includes making the game fun, then some cute way of choosing the starting player can certainly help, if it doesn't have a negative effect on gameplay. It can help both for the game atmosphere ("longest beard" - let me guess, you play dwarves in that game?) but also to set player expectations. In a game without randomness, for example, it could be weird to have the starting player being picked by the thing that you otherwise tried hard to avoid in your game design.

I like Fluxx's method:

whoever 'calls it' goes first. The easiest way to 'call it' is to draw from the deck and start playing.

If someone objects with a reason why they should go first, such as the fact that that player went first last time, then the group decides what to do. Otherwise, you just start playing the game. :D

Of course, in my group we spend ten minutes faffing over which game we even want to play... maybe it should just be "whichever game someone starts setting up first"!

We use Rock, Paper, Scissors when we are three players. If we're more, for the sake of simplicity we use dice. Thereafter the first game the winner always starts first.

In the game Last Will, the starting player is the one who paid for something most recently. Since purchasing is pretty common activity, it is fairly random to select starting player this way - unless of course someone deribelately pays for something just before the start of the game. However, in most cases, this method of selecting starting player should guarantee that this won't be the same person over and over again.
Why is it better than just randomly selecting starting player? Maybe it's not, though I like to think that this adds a little more spirit to the game - selecting player who is most connected with the game at the time, or who seems to be best for the job. This might be silly, but I would prefer talking with other players, learn something about them (maybe someone has a funny story about his last purchase or maybe he's not really sure if giving his child money for the theatre can count as paying him to get lost for couple of hours). It can be a really good ice-breaker for new players at the table.
I like to think that this is usually much more social and fun than just rolling dice by 5+ players and comparing results. If you would like to see the example, please go to the discussion about Who goes first in Pandemic?. Rules say that the player who was most recently sick goes first.

It means the person who has most recently been a victim of bioterrorism - The Chaz

In any game that revolves around points i like to let players blindly wager points.  Whoever offers the most pays it and selects the player that will go first.  Play continues clockwise.  It makes going first another dimension of the game, and not random chance that in some games seems to have an affect on the whole game.
Does not work well with new players

This idea was initially appealing to me, but the more I think about it the more problematic it seems to get.  In some games points are too valuable to bid freely; in other games going first isn't valuable enough to bid on!  Take my favourite game, Agricola: it feels like it would clearly be worth a point or two not to be in fifth seat... but I'd probably rather be in second seat than first!

Most of those rules of 'who starts first' are really partly 'fun' extensions of the game, and a way to learn a little about each other at the start.  I only use them for the first time we play a new game or at least first time with new players.  After that, those rules go out the window unless they appear to 'even' things our a bit.
We always pass around the 'who goes first' based on a few things.  1 are there any new people playing the game.  If it's better to be first we let them go first, though often we let them go last in order to see how other players play to get an idea of how the game works so not to screw up their first turn, like in Dominion.  Otherwise we tend to use the Dominion of person left of the previous winner goes first.

There aren't a lot of games out there with no specific turn order, but it's worth taking a look at Race For The Galaxy where for the most part everyone goes simultaneously.

Most modern games have a "This player goes first" criteria, but if not or if you are playing a good ol' fashion game.
General rule of thumb.
If there is a dealer, it's left of the dealer.
If it's a game where you pass things, pass to the right.
If it's a genaric board game, youngest player.
And if only one person knows how, player with most experience.
Anything else play Paper, Scissors, Stone
"Player to the left, passes to the right, youngest starts the fun, or the wise can be the one"

The emoji is broken, and should be avoided in general because they are less accessible.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How to minimize Puerto Rico setup time?
It takes quite a lot of time to set up Puerto Rico, especially when switching between games with a different numbers of players; a quarter of an hour I'd say. The problem is that it is rather time consuming to separate the different types of chips, count the colonists and victory points, restrict the number of plantations, putting the buildings on the board, etc...
I'm probably asking the impossible, but does anyone know a trick to cut down this rather long set up time?

Certainly -- the trick is do all the prep work after you finish a game.  Once you are done with the game, sort everything out for the next game.
These instructions all assume you will want to take into account the 2-Player variant when sorting; if you want to ignore the 2-player variant, ignore the bullets flagged with two stars (**).
Personally, I play a lot of the 2-player variant because I have a hard time finding a third, so I have plastic bags labelled 2 Players, 3 Players, 4 Players, and 5 Players.

** For the 2-player variant, I have sorted out 2 of each production building and 1 of each purple building into one of the trays, and have the remaining buildings in a separate tray labeled "3+ Player Buildings".
** I have removed three of each type of plantation, and placed the remainder of the plantations in one of the tray spaces.
** The 2 Player  bag contains:  65 victory points, 42 colonists.  It also contains all the barrels of goods except for 2 barrels of each type (per the 2-player rules).
The 3 Player bag contains 10 more victory points, 13 more colonists, and the remaining plantation tiles and goods barrels.

Alternately, if you don't ever plan on playing with only 2 players, the 3 Player bag should contain the base 75 victory ponits and 55 colonists.  You won't need to sort out plantations or barrels in this case.

The 4 Player bag contains 25 more victory points, and 20 more colonists.
The 5 Player bag contains the last 22 victory points, and the last 20 colonists.

If you write the contents of what the 3, 4 and 5 player bags should have, you can fill those up, and the remainder goes into the 2 player bag.
Now all you'll have to do is fish out the necessary corn and indigo plantations to determine who goes first, and you're all set.

I think there's two types of answer to this depending on whether you mind longer putting-away times or not.
If you're happy to put some extra effort into packing the pieces away, then a huge amount of time can be saved by storing the components in bags related to the number of players.  For example a "3 player" victory point bag with 75 VPs in, a "4 player" victory point bag with 25 VPs in (100-75), and a "5 player" victory point bag with 22 VPs in (122-100).  To play with 4 players simple get out the bags for three and four players.
The same trick can be applied to the colonists.  There is an example of this being done very neatly here: http://boardgamegeek.com/image/841793/puerto-rico
Assuming instead that you want to save time overall then I know of a few other things that help.
The same idea behind having separate bags can be applied, by marking some of the victory point chips and colonists.  For example it wouldn't affect the gameplay to have colonists painted in three different shades of brown or the front of the victory point chips marked with small dots.
Alternatively colonists can be counted very quickly when they are flat on a surface by using two straight edges.  The trick is to push them into a triangular shape and then select colonists by the number of rows.  See this image, and the comments below it, for details.
A final obvious, but sometimes overlooked, way to speed up the game set up, is to distribute the tasks.  I usually end up doing this as otherwise some players have a tendency to stand back until the game is ready to begin.

I was just coming here to say "paint the colonists".  Also, if marking victory points isn't obvious enough (or doesn't work well on the coated surface), there's no reason you can't have different types of tokens for VP -- poker chips, coins, or anything else of that sort work just as well.  (To keep it secret, you can throw a napkin or inverted small bowl or something over your pile.)

I also have separate bags for the different number of players. I include a card in each bag to indicate what exactly goes into that particular bag. On the back of the card I indicate what is used in the game (which ships, number of prospectors, number of plantations, etc). One other thing I do is sort the buildings and use a doubled-up rubber band to hold them all together. This makes the layout of the buildings much faster.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/


text:
How can you make Twilight Imperium games not take forever?
I really like Twilight Imperium (3rd edition), but I haven't really enjoyed my time playing it due to the long playtimes.  I've played one 4-player game, two 6-player, and one 8-player game.  The shortest game was the 4p - it clocked in at 6.5 hours.  And that was with experienced players.  I don't feel like anyone had serious Analysis Paralysis during the game but approximately one hour per full game round is just ridiculous.
One option is to play the variant where everyone starts with several systems (neighbor systems are just given to you for free).  I do enjoy the early expansion part of the game, so I'm leery about trying that.  Are there any other suggestions for speeding up play?

+1. It's also really hard to find players who are willing to sit down for an 8+ hr game.

Since someone else bumped this anyway, the new correct answer a year later is: get Eclipse :) http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/72125/eclipse

Only play with people who have played before! Not posting this as an actual answer since it is a bit snarky, but if everyone has read the rules, and played a game or ten themselves beforehand, it will save you several hours!

Some minor tweaks that can help:
1) Use the variant Imperial II from the expansion.  Tricky juggling of the turn order to ensure you get Imperial is one cause of delay in selection.  (Also, Imperial is badly designed and dull...)  That variant expects the goals to be face-up - which speeds the game up; everyone can see which vps they're aiming for later on.
2) Play to 1-2 fewer vps; that'll normally save a full turn, without damaging the endgame too badly.
3) Use a fixed board instead of dealing out; then the host can set up in advance and skip the board dealing phase. (FFG publish suggestions for this at the TI site.)
4) Assign admin tasks to players - make one player in charge of the planets deck, one in charge of action cards, etc.
5) Use a tech / status tracker or other ship reference sheet to keep quick track of tech effects on your units.
6) Get in the habit of planning your builds during other people's turn, or allow 'honor builds' in which you announce a build and then the next player moves on with the game while you build.  Builds need time-consuming decision making and are rarely affected by the next player's move.

In our last game we actually did most of those.  I especially liked having face-up objectives.  I played a lot better due to being able to plan ahead.  And I definitely liked "honor builds" too.  Overall though, these tips didn't seem like they sped up the game by much.

We use the face-up objectives (which can be done with the original Imperial as well) - and it sped up the game significantly.

I think Tynam's given the main sensible suggestions that don't distort the character of the game too much. If you want to shorten it more, then I think your options are going to have to be more drastic:

Remove the Status and Strategy phases! A friend of mine proposed a radical variant of TI3 where things move more fluidly and there aren't the defined rounds like there are in TI3. You can read his thought process at http://toothycat.net/wiki/wiki.pl?DaybreakDictatorship.
If you don't like that idea... Well, what happened with our group is we discovered Galactic Emperor. Which scratches a lot of the same itches as TI3, but takes 2 hours rather than 6-9. It doesn't have the big tech tree or the deck of politics cards, but, well, something has to go if you're cutting a 9 hour game down to 2 hours; and Galactic Emperor plays very much like a streamlined and simplified Twilight Imperium 3. You can read my review of Galactic Emperor compared with TI3 over on BoardGameGeek.

Sometimes we just have a "Call Time".  When that time is reached the game will complete that turn we are on and the player with the most VPs wins.  Not the best system perhaps, but it works for us.  Sometimes we finish before the call time.
We have discussed the possibility of using a game timer (similar to chess timers - ours is a cube that can time up to six players). A system that rewards the faster players and penalizes the slower ones with VPs.  The timers are only active during the times where players would "Think" - not during dice rolling battles.  We have only talked about this. not yet tried. Obviously not a good idea for those who are rookies to the game.
We also usually use the preset board designs. Positions and races are assigned randomly.

Our record is 5.5 hours for a 7 player game, 3.5 hours for a 4p game and we are convinced we can keep improving on it. But last night we spent more than 8 hours on a 6p game. I had a few ideas:
1) Don't bother including anyone who isn't actually going to be into it. If someone is going to be sitting there snoring at the pace of the game for several hours it's going to drag the whole group's energy down. People need to care enough to pay attention - if they aren't paying attention the game will take forever.
2) Attention is a limited resource. Some people like music, I personally feel that music with lyrics can be distracting if it's too loud. Minimize distractions. Coffee helps. Don't smoke pot.
3) Everyone needs to pay attention, but more than that, it helps if one or more players can actively manage the flow of the game, like "Ok, player X just went, it is now player Y's turn. You're just building in your home system? Ok, player Z, if you're just doing the same you might as well go ahead and start while player Y is still finishing." With initiative rotating the way it does in this game, sooo much time is lost in that time between turns, until finally someone says "Whose turn is it?"  In an ideal world everyone would take responsibility for identifying the player who acts after them and informing them that it is now their turn, informing everyone what the secondary ability of the strategy card they just played is, etc. Too often somebody plays their strategy card (leadership, for example), and announces it, and the entire table STILL misses it somehow because so much stuff is going on in this game.
4) It really helps if people can plan their turns out ahead of time. This isn't always possible but quite often it is. Builds in particular eat up a ton of game time, if you know that your next move is just going to be a build in your home system you should really have that move ready to execute by the time it gets to your turn.
Balancing these considerations can be tough! Spending your spare time thinking about the board state and planning your next move can mean that you don't pay attention to what is going on. The more players are actively involved in managing the flow of the game and making sure everyone knows what is going on, the better it will be. If only one person is taking responsibility for this, what happens when that person also has to take some time to think about their own moves/builds/plans? Again, attention is a limited resource.
As for game rules that speed the game up,
1) The alternate strategy cards from Shattered Empire are almost a must
2) Artifacts (add more victory points)
3) A pre-set map. It takes long enough to unbox everything as it is, this should save a lot of time.
4) Don't use distant suns, or political intrigue.
I haven't played with simulated early turns but it looks pretty lame to me.

If you're using the Distant Suns option, you could try foregoing that as the slow-down in planet acquisition means almost anything else is going to be delayed as well.

1, try making your fleet supply area a logistic command were it effects your max actions per game round, take away fleet limits(this is really fun, I even use poker chips under my ships as additional ship counters)
2, the biggest time consumer is peoples play style you need to force people to plan ahead during other peoples actions unless they are directly effected, time limits on player turns is a must , i use a 2 min rule except for during combat rolling
3,i always set up the board beforehand this can take 2 hrs easy, since you and your friends plan ahead to play this type of game anyway(who spontaneously decides to play twilight imperium?)preplan a balance game board ,or a random system for set up.
4, early exspation is fun but takes up 2/3rds of the game play, either asign double or triple your starting units and/or give extra planets away to the players at set up this aways cut 2 hrs of my game times or more and I like long games
5,last but not least no production limits you want to speed game play up that will cut a game in half right there. and still keep the core game in tact.

You should look at reformatting your answer so it is easier to read.