I've always found with One-trick-pony decks like this is that 1.) consistency is an issue and 2.) It's easier to avoid hate than to fight it while fighting your own inconsistencies.
I wouldn't really consider this a 1 trick pony. The main deck is geared to go off with show and tell, but alternate wins of yawg will, tinker, and telemin performance can all be grabbed out of the board.
So, I'll suggest Oath again. Don't worry about Orchards. If you're siding in Oath game 2/3, likely versus any deck with creatures, then you wont need them anyway. If you make room for 4 Oath then you bring them in versus a deck that will have more creatures than you. Your opponent will not be playing around Oaths from the sideboard in game 2 because he wont normally expect them. I don't think Oath + Gush are ideal but that's how it goes.
If I was playing in a very creature heavy meta this would probably be a great board plan, but more often than not I just felt like without orchard dropping an oath just said neither player can cast creatures. This isn't really a strong enough effect to destroy the consistency of my primary combo.
Gush is just a draw engine here anyway, not like in a Tendrils deck where the draw engine facilitates a storm count, or like the old Dryad decks where it actually beefs up your creature, which is required to win.
It's a draw engine, but not solely one. Gush tendrils is an alternate win con of this deck.
Lance, the deck looks interesting, I've been toying with similar ideas since playing you at bloomsburg.
I'm glad you were interested enough in it to toy with it. Might I ask what changes you made if any?
I'm not sure what was in your hand in the first game we played, but I seem to recall it being a basic bombs though walls long vs blue game. I think I threw 3 or 4 different things out there before I eventually stuck jar and went off. I think I duressed your win conditions a couple times, but I think one of the issues with this type of deck is that when you wish for something preemptively your opponent knows what you're holding. When you wished for bribery or whatever that was, obviously your next turn play was bribery my gris. I might have played differently that game but when you cast wish it made your plan obvious so I went with duress, then I tutored up academy and cast jar. You seemed surprised by this but it seemed like a pretty obvious line from my side of the table.
The second game you could have forced my chrome mox or my dark rit and I probably would have gotten bottle necked on black mana. I think I still had 4 life left at that point, and we both also had about 30 cards in hand, and you were sitting on remora so I'm not sure it was as obvious as you make it sound in your report.
Game 1 I first burning wished for show and tell, which I had to pitch to force in order to stop a draw 7, and then I wished for telemin, which you nabbed with duress. After that I had no win con or way to find it. Even though I think I won the die roll I just felt like I was 1 turn behind you that whole game. This may have been due to my wishes telegraphing my plays like you said. Game 2 I also could've forced your show and tell, but thought you would also drop a Grisel so I allowed it, but that was an incorrect assumption. Otherwise I'd say those sound like accurate recollections of our games.
I'm not sure this has sufficient internal synergies to yield something better than the talrend gush decks. Gush decks seem to thrive on getting as many effects as they possibly can out of every individual spell they cast. This deck seems to be using gush to get to a 2 card combo and I think that sticks too many dead cards in your deck overall. If you're gush chaining, your 3 gris, 3 shows and bargain seem awkward since they don't build off the momentum you've built up but instead go in a completely different direction. If you have an early gris but not fastbond your gushes seem awkward because your deck wants you to combo out or hold the fort, but you're engine wants you to play completely differently. It's not so much that either part is bad or that they work against each other, but they just seem to pull in different directions.
I'm not sure I really see a comparison with Talrand gush decks. This is using gush as a value draw engine, like Delver does, instead of as its primary win con, like empty gush would.
I agree though gush in this deck can create some pretty awkward hands, but in my testing I found I really needed a draw engine to make show and tell work. Gush seemed like the best draw engine for a deck whose critical turn is 3. Certainly there are other options that could be explored though.
Jace and draw 7's were really the only other options that I tested. Jace was too slow and I didnt like draw 7's because I'm finding a 2 card combo not a single card.
Now that I really think about after being away from this deck for a little bit I think a change like:
+1 Thirst +1 Gifts +1 noxious revival +2 Snapcasters -4 Gush -1 Fastbond
Might be a good option to sure up the mana base by removing green, but it would slow the deck down. So this probably also means I would need more control cards over remora and some tutors.
Other than that increasing the artifact count for thoughtcast is the only other realistic option I could think of. That draw engine invites other inconsistancies though.
