Conceptually I feel like this is mostly just an air elemental with melvin flavor text, 2 mana to cycle a card isn't appealing enough to make you invested to have it in play barring some unorthodox set design. It's also odd to me that it's not an artifact creature. I personally find the card design appealing, but it feels like a relic of a bygone era (that I personally wish never left.)

B

The name is greatly upsetting, first of all, and the phantom clause should check if it still has counters left.
I like the narrative concept of this creature. I'm not sure about the mechanics of it. Cycling seems misplaced on a creature that scales with your mana, there aren't that many game states where it's desirable.

C

It seems kind of scary to turn all your ornithopters into 3-drops, not to speak of anything that can cheat mana values, and the ward makes it even more difficult to stop your opponent from going off. I'd expect a card like this to at least have a once-per-turn limit, but being able to target what your want to begin with unlike with cascade is kind of surprising in itself.

C

You can't get to my heart with skaab ruinator references.
I don't know, I kind of like it, it has some nice gameplay tension, but I would like some spoopy flavor text. Wonder if it should maybe sacrifice itself, mostly for thematic reasons.

B

That certainly is a very impressive effect at an extraordinarily difficult cost. It seems more realistic that you would get this off by proliferating rather than throwing thirteen artifacts into the void. I don't know, the card just seems way too extreme to me in a way that doesn't seem conducive to good games, and you almost have to set up a combo for it to combo off in the first place. Maybe if it at least gave you some marginal benefit from all the artifacts you exile to help you along the way. I like the vibes though.

D

I don't entirely understand why this card refunds all your escape costs, if it wasn't also the enabler then it would maybe be a cool buildaround, but here you just offer a cost and then circumvent it in the next sentence. There's a lot going on here, and there are some parts of it I like, but largely I think there's a bit too much. I don't really know what to make of the additional cost, I think it makes the card too unwieldy to cast fairly, but you also get a disproportionately powerful 3 drop if you Unearth it.

D

I like the narrative resonance in the mechanics here, although I'm not entirely sure why you're not allowed to cast artifacts. Likewise with my comments on Parad's card, giving all my artifacts an expensive cycling cost isn't really that appealing, but it does at least seem more reasonable of an effect on a cheaper card. But this card could easily cost only one red and not had a drawback and I would still question its use case.

C

Crescendo does not seem like a mechanic with much design space. I question if it even has any. You have to cast exactly a 1 and 2 mana spell (or 3 and 0) for it to trigger for a total of 6 mana on your turn. A 2 mana crescendo card is very limited in how you can enable it, a 4 mana one requires you to spend 8 mana in total, and any other spell cost is out of the question. It's also kind of disappointing that your opponent can fizzle the entire effect even if you set it up. Also the card is just positively horrendous if you don't, although it's nice that it has some flexibility if you're behind.

C

This seems very close to a solid design. I think the etb effect is a bit questionable on a six drop, I think it could stand to be a bit more self sufficient. I think it also counts itself, which is a bit unintuitive from a rules standpoint and could be clarified. Junk tokens work well thematically, but I also wonder if it would play better if the tokens actually did something.

B

I think it's kind of strange that this card practically just works like a split card, one of the sides being triple red. I feel like it kind of detracts from both of the keywords by how well they work in conjunction, how cheap the cycling cost is, and that they are the same color. The madness cost is practically just a cycling trigger, you're not encouraged to find other ways to discard it.
The name is also kind of tenuous, and I don't think dragons are a good fit for an X/X token.

C

I was thinking more capital D dragon and less dragonkin, but I can't hold that against you. I don't have much to complain about here, it seems like an eminently printable card, if perhaps a bit basic. Seems like the type of card that would be legendary.

B