Very similar to Suffocating Blast.

I don't think this actually gets rid of the Blast's problem of not being able to play it at all against a creatureless opponent. You would have to choose a target creature, then on resolution-time choose whether to shock it or to completely ignore the target and just burn to the face. That's awkward.

Changed it to up to one so you can choose 0 and just blast to the face.
And yes, it IS similar to Suffocating Blast just a bit less powerful but more versatile.

Why not just say "deals 2 damage to target creature or player"? More multiplayer-friendly, simpler template, simpler rules.

I.. guess there MIGHT be a situation where you're on 2 life and can see that your opponent has a reflect shield available?

But yeah, just have it let you choose a target. "Hah! Piddly opponent one's spell is not only countered, but actually shoots piddly opponent two in the face! Bask in my awe!" isn't a downside :)

Made multiplayer friendly

­Counterspell + Shock + single-card-premium. Seems simpler and right now. Plus it's a counterspell that shoots your opponent in the creature; what's not to love? (Well, that it cosst 4 of course, but still.)

I mean, "~ deals N damage to up to one target creature" would have worked as well; so would a "Choose one or both"-wording since both effects target (with the benefit that you can just cast it as a really expensive burn spell).

That said this is Dismiss except you know you always draw Shock and in turn have to cast it immediately - without additional cost. That's about the level of upgrade going multicolor should give you.

It is a perfectly servicable design if that exact thing is what you want.

I personally would probably prefer the Mana Leak variant, but those variants are why we won't run out of design space anytime soon.

Interestingly, Ionize infers that might also be an option now.

@jmgariepy:

Ever since Psychic Strike it has been said that hard counterspells are okay as long as they have two or more colored mana in their mana costs, which of at least one is - as opposed to hard counterspells always requiring double in their mana cost.

Ah! I knew there was another card that did that... I just couldn't put my finger on it.

Personally, I'm not a fan of this exception. But I understand that one can only print so many cards with Undermine's casting cost.

The truth is, though, that the double blue exception is a bit of a bogus rule propped up by grandfathered cards that just happen to have UU in their cost. I understand the argument of why only serious blue players should have access to hard counters. It makes sense in the abstract. Until you realize that black gets hard creature removal on spells with only one black mana. Red gets hard burn. Green gets hard artifact destruction, etc.. It's just a rule that we all decided was fine for one color because that's what we've always done.

(Though, I guess white Wraths almost always include double white. I'm sure there are some other mechanics that operate this way, too.)

Well, the whole concept of wraths in white is somewhat iffy. I still think they fit more into black, but at least now black solidly shares it with the color officially. Regardless, that's a color pie discussion.

Then we have stuff like Razia's Purification (Merciless Eviction) which only has one though I guess that could be said to follow the rule of requiring at least two colored mana of which at least one matches the "main" color.

I would go as far as saying that stuff like Frazzle is fine, which many probably see as pushing the envelope or as an one-off exception. I don't find it unbelievable that the official direction would move towards this in the near future as well. For example, I'm perfectly fine with Silences Yet Unmoved that is a card in my set. I know neither of these are strictly hard counters, but they are very close. In my book Cancel is fine.