Time flow cards.

[TeRevised]

Spoiler for Time Acceleration:

NAME: Time Acceleration ELEMENT: Time COST: 10 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: - TEXT: Draw 1 Card from your deck per 2 remaining quanta, up to a full hand, consume the remainder.	NAME: Time Stream ELEMENT: Time COST: 9 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: - TEXT: Draw 1 Card from your deck per 2 remaining quanta, up to a full hand, consume the remainder.

ART: StartShotPaper IDEA: StartShotPaper NOTES: Though it costs more than Hourglass, which is expensive, and you may overload without any Quanta left, it has high value for the turns it spares. As per Fractal, it's more effective on lighter cards, but this effect can also draw card combos. It also likewise clashes with its source.

Spoiler for Protraction:

NAME: Protraction ELEMENT: Time COST: 4 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: - TEXT: Target ally creature acts repeatedly this turn end. Delay it that many extra turns. Acts bonus add to 7 attack or over.	NAME: Time Contraction ELEMENT: Time COST: 7 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: - TEXT: Target ally creature acts repeatedly this turn end. Delay it that many extra turns. Persistent effect. Acts bonus add to 7 attack or over.

ART: StartShotPaper IDEA: StartShotPaper NOTES: It adds an immediate attack burst as well as extra attack in general.

[dragtom]

Your max hand size is 8.
Lets say Time acceleration is the last card in your hand; compare the card draw/quanta to hourglass:

	time accel.	hourglass
10	0	3
12	1	4
14	2	5
16	3	6
18	4	7
20	5	8
22	6	9
24	7	10
26	8	11
28	8	12

This is extremely expensive. You are better off cutting a number of pillars and adding a few hourglasses.
On top of that, chances are you'll be running a mono or maybe a mark-splashed duo to be able to pay so much quanta-
but the quanta drain prevents you from immediately using the card draw. (and you most likely end up discarding a card even, but thats minor).
The advantages it has over hourglass are not worth the extra cost.

Normally i'd try to compare it to other stuff, but there isn't really anything that comes close.
Precognition is simply a self-replacement, golden nymph is a more complicated hourglass,
and SoBr is both in an element with burst quanta gain, and has the very difficult to compare cost of the opponent drawing cards.

I'd recommend lowering the cost drastically, maybe even 4 would be good.
(Yes, that becomes very similar to hourglass number-wise, which brings questions about it needing to exist).

For protraction, I have a bit of trouble understanding it.
I get that it is some sort of 1-turn full damage adrenaline, followed by a delay on that creature equal to the amount of extra attacks.
Also there's something with an attack buff.
I think that the amount of extra attacks it does equals (7 - atk), but im not sure.
Perhaps you could clear it up?

[kaempfer13]

Depending on who you ask carddraw is worth between 2-5 quanta (5 because thats the sweetspot for quantaindex; however it assumes you get a large chunk of your pillars in your starting hand, which you wont if you have to draw them with this). Personnaly I would say a card draw is worth about 3 mana and a cycle (replacing a card with another as you also use a card to cast this) about 1. As such "draw 8" should cost no more than 23 and that is completely ignoring the awkwardness of needing an empty hand for it to even fully work and getting that amount of quanta (and then also ending up without any before you can use cards drawn this way). the card would probably be fair at 2 : Draw a card and consume all remaining  quanta. For every 3 drained this way draw another card. in that case it would probably be mostly used in rainbow otks as 11 draw 4 with some flexibility. In fact it still looks weak to me, as at the point where the cardadvatage pays off you probably play mostly time cards anyway, which you cant play until the turn after.

There is a somewhat comparable card in oetg. It's innovation, discards a card of your choice from your hand, costs 4 . it was overpowered and still is strong after the nerf (it randomly mills a card from deck making it basically unplayable in combodecks). So my cost theory is probably about right (its 2 cycles (1 each)+ a legit draw( 3 )), hence why innovation is a quanta too cheap.