Since Ghost Quarter has come up a couple of times today, it feels like the perfect time to ask: may I request a reprint of Ghost Quarter into Standard and Pioneer?

I can ask. I don’t know how play design feels about the card.

What's your favorite card that you've made that's a "fix" for an older one?

Probably Ghost Quarter. It took me a while to fix “Strip Mine”, but I feel I did it:

but like a Legendary Creature that downside can be used to help offset a powerful effect. I would rather see Legendary Lands and a few more instances of targeted land removal ie. Ghost Quarter, to help answer them. It not only makes having more then one copy more relevant but allows those lands to have a greater effect.

Having the legendary lands be more powerful than normal only exacerbates the legendary play pattern problem with lands.

"Blue doesn’t destroy permanents in the sense that it makes them permanently go away. It can used the word 'destroy' as a mechanical means to aid in transformation." So Blue could Ghost Quarter lands? It could get Gild, but for artifacts? A Blue Chaos Warp would be a bend, not a break? Blue's mechanical weakness is that it's supposed to be reactive--that it has trouble permanently dealing with things in play. How far are you going to stretch the "transmute" excuse to let it do whatever it wants?

Blue can steal permanents.Blue can tap and lock down permanents.Blue can bounce permanents.Blue can and has since the beginning of the game been able to interact with permanents. What it can’t do is destroy them (once again making them permanently go away).I’m not changing anything. I’m explaining how we’ve done Blue for the last 23 years.

Why not just put "target non-basic land" on cards like slaughter games, non-basic has been used for years on wasteland and ghost quarter, so if you put it on slaughter games it can now be a awnser for all kinds of things like cavern of souls or valakut

Do you mean any card whatsoever but a basic land or a land but only one that’s non-basic? See the ambiguity?