Ok, I get that the rules for sacrificing don't work for spells on the stack, but if they did, there's this card.

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.

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.

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.