It seems like too complex a design to me. There are too many points of failure in a 30+ engine cluster. The 30 engines in the soviet N1 did not work out so well for them.
It's not the number of engines. Falcon Heavy uses 27 engines, and has flown 5 times with no problems. And the 6th launch is scheduled for this Friday.
N-1 failed for the most part, for being "built on the cheap", with little to zero testing. It never had ground vibration testing as Saturn-V and shuttle had. It never test fired a stage, the first time 30 engines ignited was for liftoff. It used a never-tested guidance control method of temporarily shutting down a few engines on one side to cause a thrust imbalance to steer it (Russia never tried that method again). And that was part of why flight #1 failed, during launch the system shut down a good engine, and then shut down all but one engine, IIRC. Also, it had no rocket thrust for correcting roll (all engines were fixed). The 3rd or 4th flight, it was close to staging, when it began to roll out of control and broke apart.
For Starship, it is looking like a massive oversight in not giving its launcher flame tranches, or not simply building the pad legs to be much taller, with a center set of deflectors (think of a 6 sided pyramid, maybe curved to the sharp at the tip and curving outwards towards the base). If indeed that is a problem, they are going to have a hell of a time "fixing" that. And possibly might have to build a new pad. Or, maybe they temporarily live with what the have to get in that first launch using the flawed pad, but start work on a better pad.
There is a StarShip pad being bult at KSC at 39A. I've not kept track, and it is way harder for the public to get pics of it (unlike Boca Chica with the public road running right past, and freedom of the skies to get aerial photos as it is not a military-cntrolled facility). So I wonder if they are building a copy of the Boca Chica pad, or trying to address these problems with major improvements.
Meanwhile, I'll take the StarShip orbital launch date more seriosuly when a few major space groups I trust (not run by fanbois), indicate it really, really, really, is expected to fly say a month later (then I'll double that timeframe). Much as I lived thru (and learned) with the serial chants of "6 months, 6 months, 6 months" for years, waiting for Falcon Heavy.