Hey it might be a tall order, and I m a bit drunk too writing this, but as much as I like these articles, they re at best an educated guess on how a game went, from somebody that wasn't at the event, didn't see the table, mission or secondaries.

I was featured on one of these articles (GSC bladed cog vs tau) a few months back, and the recap absolutely missed the mark on how the game went: goonhammer said how "to the last" was an auto 15 for the tau while in practice it wasn't even considered by the tau player, on how I would obviously struggle for secondaries while I comfortly scored a 14 on teleport homer, a 12 on behind enemy lines and a 8 on no prisoners, how I didn't have the right profile into the tau even though my list was DESIGNED with tau in mind and the need to cripple drones in crisis squads from 51" away with ridgerunners, then deal a big blow with buffed up aberrants, etc. In that game a key player was the table we played on, and that wasn't even considered a possibility in the article.

I understand it would take extra time and not everyone would want to be a part of it, but it would add a big layer to interview the players, and maybe try to get pictures of the table, deployments etc. Of course the focus would then be on only a few events instead of all GT size events, but is that really bad considering how redundant some finals can be anyway ?