I had a nice prose rules argument with paragraphs and crap, but I hit Backspace at an inopportune moment or something and navigated away from the page, losing it all... so, I'll just post statements, and you tell me where I'm wrong

1) If my opponent has both Makai High Noble and Blinding Rage and I attempt to destroy one of his other foundations, he cannot use Makai High Noble and then use Blinding Rage to search for additional copies of Makai High Noble. Why not? Makai High Noble's response is now the ability that destroys a foundation, not my card effect

2) If my opponent has Blinding Rage and Journey of Repentance, then by the same reasoning above I could not tutor for more JoRs?

3) If I use Program Malfunction and my opponent responds with Journey of Repentance, then Journey may be readied regardless of the state of Malfunction {same reasoning as (2) )

4) If I use Program Malfunction and my opponent responds with Torn Hero, then unlike JoR it WILL remain committed until PM readies or leaves play, because Torn Hero reads "After your opponent plays an ability that commits a card in your staging area, THEY commit this card instead." The ability is redirected, instead of completely substituted.

i would say you are wrong on the first 3 because it is still there effect destroying you are just making the choice of what they destoy for them not actualy destroying it..

With MHN and JoR they merely say "destroy/commit this foundation instead". So it would be your ability that is doing it, however they are changing the target for your ability. So it is still your ability that is destroying it. So Blinding rage would work with both. That would be my reasoning. However, i can see where your logic has come from because with Torn Hero it specifically states "they commit this card instead" rather than just "commit/destroy this card instead". But i believe they work the same way.

The difference being that torn hero reacts to the playing of an ability that can cause a card in your staging area to become committed. Such as Amy's assistance, which does not necessarily have to commit an asset in your staging area. Where as MHN and JoR react specifically to the commiting/destruction of your card. So in this case you could only use JoR in response to Amy's Assistance if your opponent chooses to commit one of your assets. While Torn Hero could respond just to them playing the ability.

Stamp for Babelfish minus one thing. Journey can only respond if they're going to commit a foundation, not an asset!

Woops. I should read the card more carefully hehe.

So I can Blinding Rage my set of Makai High Nobles out? I thought there was a ruling against this, but I certainly won't complain ^^. However, I'm starting to think about cutting Mentoring from some of my decks, I really am...

And, what's the ruling in regards to a China Boxed Torn Hero or Journey to Repentance? I'm not 100% clear from babel's post

JOR is a replacement effect: "R: Before your opponent commits 1 of your foundations, commit this foundation instead."

CB says: "E Commit: Commit 1 of your opponent's foundations. It does not ready during your opponent's next Ready Step."

PM says: "F Commit: Commit 1 of your opponent's foundations. Until this foundation readies again or is removed from your staging area, your opponent's foundation committed by this ability can not be readied."

CB will keep that JOR committed an extra turn.

PM is still the ability committing the foundation, JOR just changes the target.

Torn Hero is even more obvious because if it didn't work on CB & PM it wouldn't work on itself.

----

Also, I'm pretty sure MHN is a replacement effect as well. It changes the target of the destruction, but the controller is still the other player.