Makes sense Alex. I was just trying to see if a dfc instant/ sorcery could justifiable exist. Ultimately, this is a just ended up being an exploratory adamant with extra steps.

I agree with Alex - this is clunky as a DC and the rules as is don't support it afaik.

Perhaps alternatively an aftermath would be proper for this? Ala Dusk // Dawn type of deal.

It feels to be this would be easier to understand if it wasn't a DFC. It also has the problem of needing targets in the back side that were never chosen. Unless the intended meaning of transform on an instant or sorcery is "transform, choose targets if necessary, and all players get a chance to respond including with countermagic"?

I guess you could use it in that way. And that it should probably specify what the source of the countering is

Since you are giving up control of the creature, shouldn't it be something more than a Centaur Courser that might come back to bite you?

How about at least a cantrip or "Whenever ~ attacks a player other than its owner that player sacrifices an artifact."?

So this is Aura-deck tech against 2-for-1s, right?

Kinda like Grand Abolisher but doesn't shut off half as much stuff. Additionally, it doesn't STOP counterspells it just makes them bad. Obviously a strong hate piece against counterspells but doesn't do anything to aggressive or tap-out control decks.

The thing is this: Black already ventured into the counterspell business with Dash Hopes. So using that template (also seen on Temporal Extortion), I'd rather see

When you cast this spell, any player may discard two cards. If a player does, counter ~.
Counter target spell.

than anything with retort. It's just a complicated way to do something straightforward. Actually I'd rather see

Counter target spell unless its controller/any player discards two cards.

than see the Planar Chaos template return, but that's a matter of WotC themselves being to high-concept IMO.

The spell is just too rarely populated to make "Target player sacrifices a spell." a color's "thing". It's too narrow.

I don't think every innovation into these directions is bad, but these two don't seem too pull the weight necessary to justify expanding terminology and adding keyword mechanics.

After all that's probably why his is a Card With No Home: That home is either in a Future Sight style set as a preprint that never gets expanded upon or in a set that somehow justifies more use of retort... I can imagine the first, but the second... tough order.

There's been talk of how blue shouldn't have complete dominance over counterspells and this is an example of how that could be remedied. Sacrifice is blacks wording so that's why I used it

Retort is a different mechanic that I thought would be cool here. If you've only got one spell on the stack, you could cast an opt or something, then activate retort in order to sac your little spell.

Sacrifice effects usually state who has to control the object.

Even so "puts a spell [they control] into its owner's graveyard", "counters a spell [they control]", "exiles a spell [they control]" all work nicely.

Doesn't make retort any better a mechanic or this any less of a bend of the color pie.