How to Rate Hearthstone Cards: My System

[@TheFatManatee]

"i gave it the complex rating for simplicity"

[@MrGeemonty]

Your comment is "Stupid, unless it isn't"

[@OHA97]

I would give this rating system an "amazing if used right"...because its more complex then rating them from 1-5 stars but people will put cards in completely wrong categories xD

[@MrGeemonty]

LOL Like he did with Silver Vanguard @10:47

[@DarkPhenix3000]

Penguin is still 10 stars out of 5

[@meris8486]

Well it did see play in a tier 1 deck

[@bleflar9183]

I mean, its infinite value.

[@Lovehandels]

it's op af

[@JackSmith331]

I... I love him.

[@lolialf]

we all know "Wisp" is in the category "Graft it Gold"

[@Pyronaut_]

Nikki Juseas Stenskov 2 stats for 0 mana? That’s infinite value!

[@emilsandberg5830]

PyroTrap no, because it spends 1 card on 2 stats. That is terrible value.

[@GubbiGap]

My boyfriend crafted all 0-cost minions in Golden.... I didn't know if I should be proud of him or be sad because of the dust used xD

[@YouremadbigL]

Be sad for him. Terrible value is terrible.

[@AximVidya]

Lina Al-Jarallah you should dump him immediately, you deserve better.

[@MinecraftKraken]

Human? I don't believe you.

[@HOVNA]

Even though I like how you colored the nine categories with all the class colors, i would suggest a small design change. With the colors as they are now, its nor very intuitive to know in which category they belong to. It would be much easier for a viewer if all cards (ratings) in one category shared a single color. I think the mana cost is already clever, but with the color change it would be instantly recognizable. For example simple cards brown, complex cards white and tech cards blue. I feel like this way it would be much easier to digest as I felt lost several times even in this video explaining it. Other than that, great job!!!

[@peshomighty5051]

Basically simple. Fits in all decks like chillwind yeti. Complex cards that work with other cards like recruit or spitful summoner. And tech like mindcontrol for wide boards or polimorph for big minions.

[@Qist13]

You don’t know how entertaining your videos are to watch

[@opinionofmine3238]

Interesting system. Requires a shit ton of knowledge on the overall game to consistently rate cards. Great job!

[@hablo_papøl]

Update your mountain and magma giant pictures. They're elementals now, ya remember?

[@AximVidya]

I member

[@ironmilutin]

Sebastian Amstrup Skogstad he used the pre nerf patches, does it really matter at all?

[@cheezuschrist588]

That's because he was using it as an example of OP cards, that doesn't really work if the card he shows is bad.

[@gabrielkong8023]

Penniless Good Job man! Keep up the good work (ps will you be reviewing the latest released cards for boomsday?)

[@recoveryemail1046]

Yeah, I'd also be glad to see his analysis. He knows the game too good, well better than streamers thinking their rank matters the most!

[@masterplusmargarita]

The point of rating systems is to give a quick and easy-to-understand overview of what you think a card's power level is. If understanding your ratings requires watching a 13 minute explanation video, you've messed up. Five stars might not provide as much nuance as this, but people tend to elaborate on why they're giving any given rating anyway.

[@wolfgangromine8341]

I love your rating system. It’s the most effective and thought-out one and it’s very smart. I wish other Hearthstone players would adopt it.

[@Eshiay]

Just have several rankings systems per card. It could be displayed like this: *Power* (More accurately, maximum power level. Conditional effects have higher potential outputs) (5 for card like Nzoth) *Consistency* (how often the card can work at maximum Power Level is) (5 for cards like Chillwind Yeti) *Versatility* (how often it can be brought to maximum power level) (Acolyte of Pain is at a 4-5 due to how many decks can run cards that can deal damage to it.) Use each as a 0-5 scale. Cards are above curve when a card's total is higher than 9, where it would excel at more than 1 thing or not be particularly bad in any situation (9 is enough for 1 1/5, 3/5, and 5/5 amongst the scales)

[@Eshiay]

I can see some problems with this still. I'll be working on it as I go. Hopefully some of you can help me with this.

[@Elex127]

I feel this is complexity for it's own sake. The advantage gained is not worth the extra effort. Hoping you prove me wrong in the reviews.

[@runesapien]

I like Trump's rating system too. He doesn't try to determine the power level of the card, but rather how it will perform in exactly the upcoming meta. 5 stars - Appears in a tier 1 deck OR defines a tier 2 deck or above 4 stars - Sometimes option in a tier 2 deck OR defines a tier 3 deck 3 stars - Sometimes option in a tier 3 deck OR defines a tier 4 deck 2 stars - Saw some play but eventually forgotten 1 star - Never saw play

[@MajkaSrajka]

But... why? You simply added another axis. Axis that doesn't change anything, other than point out "this is a tech card" that literally everyone with their eyes can see, and categorizing it doesn't really affect your scoring system (other than codifying some spoken stuff that no one cares about anyway when discussing predictions).

[@yoavsigler4457]

Your channel makes the best type of content. You put a lot of thought into your videos, way more so than other channels do, but you also think about the correct (or the most interesting) aspects of what you talk about. You talk about everything from a designer's perspective, you talk about how cards affect the game as a game, and not just what they do to the meta or where they would fit. You make Blizzard feel more human than other people do, pointing out both human mistakes and things done right, which is admirable. Thank you for making videos.

[@chickenbonanza4251]

I am still bugged by the fact that your rating spells have *Battlecry*.

[@TheLoneAlpaca]

Dude this system is sick. Can’t wait to see you use it for card reviews

[@Rustedrax]

Did you know that putting more thought into a certain system doesn't automatically make it better. Simplicity is also a valid concern. If you have to make a whole video about your rating system, that's already a bit of a red flag. That's my quick take on it though, as the target audience of your videos is also a variable here.

[@manrock1924]

Awesome setup! Better than the 5 star, you should suggest this to the other streamers and youtubers for there review :)

[@dsargus3]

better - maybe, but definitly more complex. It would take a while to get used to it. ^^

[@TheXBladeist]

It's so much more unique and interesting. I like yer system Penniless! Thanks for making so eyecatching.

[@ZedZerdz_]

Great video as always Penniless, always a bless to see you upload. As for the video itself, it's really cool to see a new take on the classic 5-star rating system, & has given me some ideas for how I might want to do my own 5-star rating for the upcoming Boomsday expansion.

[@bap5150]

Awesome rating system man keep up the great work!

[@Axis33008]

I think your system is probably one of the best out there, saying that a card is good or bad is simply not enough in a game like Hearthstone so it's nice to see a more multidimensional approach.

[@zulda1396]

main thing i got out of this was that golakka crawler was an un'goro card. I did not know that

[@blacklite911]

Zulda it’s pirate hate because of pirate warrior and tempo rogue I think. Right now we need battlecry hate. A neutral minion that makes them not trigger

[@zulda1396]

that makes sense but what i was saying was I thought it was from classic, not un'goro

[@happygoluka9367]

this is honestly an ingenious way of looking at game design and quantifying game balance, good job and i hope you try and improve upon this.

[@pasztordominik4709]

This sistem is the finest I saw. I just love it!

[@arthurgraton7165]

ok, can't wait to see your next card review.

[@royalsam7229]

Thank you for your work and thoughts.

[@ambeltkraan]

I think Shudderwock is a craft it golden type. The problems it causes currently can not be fixed by chancing the card itself but the batterlcry it replays, if it goes into wild it will probably still be used good because of all the battelcries you can give it, like the old gods ones.

[@thethingthatwants]

My argument in favor of Silver Vanguard: (considering she has become the cornerstone of my rank 20 wild deck "Welcom to Wild") First i should say I LOVE this ranking system (LOVE IT!!!) SilverVanguard may be terrible in standard, but wild is where it truly shines with just a single 8 cost card: Kel'Thuzad Once you put Kel'Thuzad (+1 or 2 other 8 costs) in your deck with her, she suddenly trurns from an expensive card that dose little when it hits the board, to a card that WILL WIN YOU THE GAME! if your opponet dose not have an answer for it. The deck for anyone curious Paladin- 2x Avenge 2x Competitive Spirit 2x Getaway kodo 2x Redemption 2x Repentance 2x Bell Ringer Centry 2x Mysterious challenger (Yes this is a secret paliden but not your standard type) 2x Annoy-o-tron 2x Stuborn Gastrrpod 2x Giant Wasp 2x Silent knight 2x Stoneskin Basalisk (If they ever make a Stealth-Taunt minion that cost 2 or 3 its going in just for thematic sake... I did say this was a "rank 20" deck) 2x Silver Vanguard 1x Dr. Boom (becaues duh) 1x Kel'Thuzad 1x Litch King 1x Tirion Fordring As you can see this deck is built almost entierly around reviving or replaying minions and making those minions stick, as such the games I win play like this Turn 1/2: a secret and/or hero power, this is a Control Deck (love your explination video on that to by the way) and so not much happens here (I might just lose flat out...) Turn 3/4: POISON, TAUNTS AND DEVINE SHIELD OH MY!!! (Stealth sets up for value trades the midgame) Turn 5/6: "Hey you tired of secrets yet? Yes? Well here! Have some more secrets!" Turn 7: here is where Silver Vanguard become the cornerstone and 'win condition' of the deck, normaly by this point my opponet has burnned most of their removal (cant play valuable minions while their is a sticky poison minnon on the board and got to do something about that 10/9 M.C.) so i drop a S.V. and they either turn the game around and win... or they have no more answers and just drop a big minion themselves (BIG mistake!) Turn 8: S.V. runs into big minion! pulls out Kul', Litch, or Tirion! if I have one in hand in hand i drop it now, BAM I now have a board of 2x"BIG TAUNT" or Kul'+"BIG TAUNT"+"about to bring out other BIG TAUNT" and may the card game gods have mercy on their soul if their's somehow a Redemption on the board. Turn 9: opponet leaves after failing to kill Kul'Thuzad and Litch/Tirion just duplicated themselves and i drop either a poison minion+secret or the other 8 drop that shouldn't have been my hand Now most games don't go this smoothly, and people would probobly say that the deck only works because I put a bunch of way better cards in it, but the S.V. generaly gets my power players out at the same time for a wave of value that is just a nightmare to deal with, turning the "Craft it Golden" cards into "Welcom to Wild"

[@nandecaetano3393]

Congrats, nice work

[@dend1]

Please do analysis on the Warrior class and how it compares to the others. Include interesting subjects like how it uses its weapons compared to other weapon users. I'll do my part to introduce your channel among my friends

[@MsBukke]

i think many streamers already use your parameters to predict how much a card is gonna get used, for example trump uses a system that predicts how much the card is gonna get used in the current meta. i prefer the five-star system, because i think that anyone can predict if a card is gonna be used as tech or as "build your deck around this card" card, i'd rather see someone that predicts how much a card is gonna get used, that's way harder, you have to theory-craft decks and predict wich ones will be the most used.

[@raqyee]

Dude, this is so convoluted. People use 5 star system because it's simple, and people can just elaborate further whether a given rank implies a card is rated in a vacuum or in predicted meta. Making things more complicated doesn't necessarily make them better. But also, At the end of the day, it's all just predictions based on ones game knowledge and experience. Only thing such systems really do is decide how much wiggle room one gets when trying to guess usefulness of a card.

[@720pchannel]

It is not convoluted at all, and it is by far the best review system for hearthstone

[@Thormedor]

Yeah, it's a 1 to 5 system, with notes... You can technically just accept the number at the corner and don't read the note. And like, at every streamer's channel where they say out why they gave the numbers for it... like a note... Uhm... what are you even about? Are you high or something?

[@xaphan7061]

Agreed. This just means you have to qualify 11 terms instead of 5.

[@Uri433]

Juan Jose lmao this system is terrible. It might be more accurate than the 5-star system, perhaps, but it is so needlessly complicated, to the point of needing a 13 min video to explain, that it will just amount to nothing. The 5-star rating is meant to be simple and able to be taken at face value, and the streamers will elaborate anyways, so what's the point of complicating things just for the sake of complicating things

[@KiDKiSAM3]

I think the point that you are missing is that most Hearthstone players use the one to five star system as a general Spectrum. As in "is a card good in every situation?, How well does it perform?, how consistent?, And does anything do it better?" awesome they have a wide range of audience members so breaking down some cards the way you are might be too overwhelming for some of their audience so it's easier to just make a simple system of is the card good bad or somewhere in between. But I definitely do agree with about 70% of what you said in this video.

[@hyper-thermal]

Boogeymonster is in the absolute worst category? Oh no. Should I just dust it, then or keep it as a collection thing or maybe it'll have some use later?

[@dillmill7698]

HyperThermal it wont see use. Ever.

[@hyper-thermal]

Not even with like Houndmaster Shaw?

[@dillmill7698]

HyperThermal 12 mana darius crowley. Nice

[@67tedward]

Boogeymonster has seen zero play in over two years.

[@xnick_uy]

Keep it! You never know if someday Blizzard creates a "make target minion a mech" card, and suddenly you have a fine target for magnetic stuff!! I'm just thinking about the still-not-completely-revealed Doomsday Project expansion, but we can always "dream" about all the possibilities at any given time.

[@jofsky9066]

All is great but I would choose clarity ober looks. What I mean by that is making each "subcategory" have one class skin (all tech cards having the rouge outline for example). It would make it eqsier to undarstand and easier for viewers to quickly identify what are we talking about

[@robr8947]

Good job once again

[@matt4kz]

I feel like Ultimate Infestation would’ve been the perfect example for the ‘craft it golden’ ranking

[@leaffinite2001]

The only thing i have to say here is that i think most people using five star systems are trying to measure an overall impact the card will have, whereas this ranking system focuses on defining a cards impact. Less of a "this card will be really relevant" and more a "this card will do these things and heres wether they do it well". But thats a better system, so no complaints here. Loved the vid

[@wombatpandaa9774]

I love this rating system

[@forceoflazy]

I think this is an overcomplication, and let me explain why: the "vertical" categories say about the style of the card (they organize the system but don't provide a rating) and the horizontal categories are heavily dependent of the experimentation during the meta, as it was quite clear in the examples given during the video. Just like the star rating system, to be accurate you need to wait and see how the card will actually do when put together with everything else.

[@gejr9918]

You should do a video on 1/1’s, 1/1’s in this game are very interesting imo, we have many interesting 1/1’s from the wisp, to novice Engineer to the 7 mana paladin legendary which i cant remember the name of :) cool vid btw

[@Rspsand07]

Wow. Don't diss my homie Cenarius. The first time I reached legend back in the days was with a ramp druid using Zombie Chow, Cairne, Syvalnnas, Cenarius.

[@Jabamaca8]

"The Boomsday Project" FULL Expansion Card-Review HYPE!!!

[@GubbiGap]

This system is pretty good, but I still think the star system is the easiest to understand - especially if you're gonna show this to people who aren't really good at the game. Everyone can tell that a "1 out of 5" isn't good, but not everyone would be able to tell that "this tech card could see play even if the thing it counters doesn't get played". I'm not trying to disrespect your system. I think it's awesome that some people go so much in depth with their analysis of cards, but at the same time I appreciate the simple thinking of star ratings.

[@karlvelazquez5279]

I completely agree, but that's what the mana cost is for. If that's all players want to see then just tell them, "hey look at the cost!"

[@randodox8375]

You, sir, are one of the brainiacs of Hearthstone community. Great vids as always.

[@yoshikii]

keep up your good work

[@maximiliangeiger169]

I expect a rating video with this system once all cards of the new expansion have been revealed.

[@Imadthebest23]

Furous Ettin bad for the arena but Vicious Scalehide is good for it? If both of them show up youre taking Furious ettin 95% of the time

[@pyramideddie7813]

I love it! *gif of a horse masked man giving a thumbs up*

[@Yui714]

Surprisingly, Magma Rager has done me a lot of good in my Quest Druid deck. Makes for a big distraction and often ends up killing a decently sized minion or dealing 5 damage to the hero. Of course, it's in there primarily to push the quest along on turn 3. I always looked at the card like it was trash but it surprised me a little bit. Against lots of little minions its just fodder.

[@martingarciabadaracco1208]

Love your thinking way of the game

[@4onejr]

Oakheart is definitely draftable in Arena

[@micahjohnson817]

Love the system, only question is how do you rate whizbang the wonderful?

[@karlvelazquez5279]

Make a website that shows all of the cards rated with this system, but includes some kind of feedback system from people. Maybe a voting system that wouldn't automatically change the location of the card on the system, but if enough people vote or something, it gets the attention of the raters to reevaluate the card. Some kind of centralized database. But this might need a lot of good raters since there are a lot of cards to... well rate

[@hrwhahaha]

yes, you did put more into this than most. you earn a cookie

[@shalevdonmeiri7594]

I still like Trump's rating system (how much play the card will see in the meta) the most. It does try to predict what the meta will be rather than just how strong the card is though, so it's pretty different. Town Crier is a super strong card that is currently a 1 star card, for example.

[@danneish12]

All magnetic cards to me deserve the complex rating, since they have more health than attack too, they tend to make minions sticky, this influencing the board in more impactful ways than pure minions (in most cases). For the trade-off though, they have inherent weakness to counter cards. Thing is, will magnetic mech have enough mech cards so that you can consistently land the magnetic? Or will it be as disappointing as totem shaman?

[@aellin-jz9el]

Ultrasaur + 2x power word shield -> 2 divine spirit -> inner fire (T-pose boi) = kill it before it lays eggs

[@danielli3288]

seems a little complicated for a very simple game.the star rating system was simple and easy to understand thats what made it great

[@thirstytortoise3030]

i thought that the tumbnail said the best dating system :(

[@jored56]

Any reasoning for the rarity of the rank cards? Mostest Stupidest being common and Craft it Golden being legendary makes sense, but the 9 in the middle are a weird seemingly inconsistent mix.

[@Cuestrupaster]

It's to complicated... ~Well I still think the Trump rating sistem is one of the best one, because he reviews the cards according the meta, not by itself, so a good card can be rated 1 star, but a meh card can be a 5 star card because the synergy and how the meta is going at the time the card shows up, and actually doesn't matter if the card is super good and it never gets to show up in the meta, so if you will never see this card in play, why rate it as a good card if all that matter is the meta right now? Get it?

[@Jonius]

Nice, though figuring out on first glance which ranking is which is kinda difficult with the long card text etc. Essentially the ratings are Trash Tier Simple Cards: Bad, Decent, Good Complex Cards: Bad, Decent, Good Tech Cards: Bad, Decent, Good God Tier That makes it a lot simpler.

[@Nappity]

The hero we needed, but we didn't deserve.

[@TeddyTentacle]

I get your rating system and i think it is well thought out, but if you make so many distinctions and have it be that convoluted you may be better off not using a rating system at all. After all the star ratings most people use are there to give the quickest possible view from that person on that specific card, everyone knows that that is mostly never representative of their complete thoughts about the card. Same goes for ratings everywhere, ranging from movies, to restaurants, to music and so on. Ratings (In this case im mostly talking about star/ point ratings)are there to give a very broken down and simple view about something. Not hating, just giving criticism, I really enjoy your videos, keep it going!

[@bentatman6031]

1 million IQ play: Archmage Antonidas + coin. Wow thanks “complex”

[@xaphan7061]

This is needlessly convoluted. The star rating is intended as an at-a-glance summation of a card's power level will all factors considered for casual players to quickly understand and for competitive players to compare notes, and all people who do star reviews explain their own personal conditions for 1 or 5 stars before doing reviews. Trump, for example, reviews his own reviews because his reads were wrong (as they often are) not because the star system is broken. It's meant to be reductive- the value is in the explanation.

[@wilfredfizz8164]

I would argue this is a better reduction, because it does not require the explanation. You can already see pretty much all the relevant information about what someone thinks of a card. Most of a time a 1-5 rating system is pretty useless, because the conditions under which it was made are unknown (rating in a bubble, in the context of the current meta, in the context of a predicted meta etc.)

[@xaphan7061]

Wilfred Fizz this is subject to the exact conditions, because something like "good when it's good" requires conditional knowledge of what shell the card would be good in. The conditionals aren't implied, they still have to be known. It's just adding a lot of words and beaurocracy to the same process every one else uses, and changing the language from "3 stars" to "good when it's good" is 6 of one and half dozen of the other, but less easy to parse.

[@lolxd2331]

Xaphan i can argue that this is only complex if you want it to be.. the mana costs indicate the star rating so if someone is not interested in the specific rating they can just glance at the mana cost to see what it equivalates to in stars. id also like to add that the seperate categories are really nothing more than "what type of card is this". simple cards are just bread and butter, very basic and easy to use or fit into your decks. complex cards require building around their effects, but can potentially be best if built around well..and tech cards are specifically to counter other cards or deck types... as a tech card should. tldr; mana cost = star rating, categories = "what type of card is this?"

[@Jaycielantern]

only don't agree with silver vanguard, as the only reason those 8 drops are in the deck at all is because she exists. Her very specific deathrattle makes the deck viable. She should be on level or at least, slightly below Kath.

[@razvanrusan9319]

So, meme deck staples generally fall in the "Useless, unless it isn't" category?

[@tsunamininja]

Maybe I'm just a big dummy but this seems far too complex and specific to be practical.

[@MajkaSrajka]

What is your average chance of being in the meta? 30%? What is actually average chance of card from the expansion being in the meta? 10%? sub10%?

[@jehdawg]

The problem with this system is that the nuance of categorization doesn't help a deck builder. A competitive player doesn't care about if a card is simple or complex, as long as it's good. And whether a card is simple or complex or tech is already apparent from the card itself, so it doesn't offer much insight. Stripping the categorization, the rating system is exactly the same as a 5 star rating.

[@MrAskmannen]

Trump usually is more correct than incorrrect tbh

[@YetAnotherYoutuber]

amazing if used right had mostly classic cards coincidence? or have hs devs been printing easy to play cards for the past few expansions?

[@tearsofdenial3796]

I disagree with guldan being "craft it golden" sure it was oppressive in KnC and useful post nerf witchwood, but if you crafted it golden day one of KfT and took it for a spin in a deck completely centered around it, you would have had a bad time. Patches was never bad, barnes was never bad, neither of those cards were ever in a tier 3-4 deck and nowhere else.

[@XyntXII]

"i am human" r/totallynotrobots

[@monarkev]

Sadly Lacking is a spell with battlecry 1/5 Stars rating because how would it work?!

[@Bruh-el9js]

if warrior had kingsbane, deadly arsenal would be meta defining

[@aidenbar511]

Ultrasaur is not pack filler ULTRASAUR IS THE GOD OF HEARTHSTONE.

[@JotaEquis7]

At the end of the day, every card has a 50% chance to get to the meta, wether it gets or wether it not LUL

[@TrungNguyen-is6lq]

I'd say all cards have 98.7654321% chance of getting into someone's deck

[@bubba2o00]

You, human, I don't believe it.

[@riccardomazzaro1901]

Honestly, the witchwood grizzly stands at the lowest point of the tech cards. NONE use it as a tech, so it's not a good tech in every meta by any mean.

[@blacklite911]

Basically all the Druid cards so far in Boomsday are craft it golden

[@kiran5964]

Millhouse rat trap combo bois

[@barrytschirpig9328]

Respectfully

[@joalampela8612]

Sadly lacking is a spell with a battlecry?

[@erwinmatys]

Patches doesn't have charge anymore....

[@terrariku2010]

Underestimating carnivorous cube to the point of thinking it will be utter trash is without a doubt, the dumbest prediction Hearthstone streamers ever made. I actually did not see their predictions until after that set was live as I had not been playing Hearthstone for quite some time but I assure you I would have disagreed strongly with them before it went live, maybe even say they were being stupid. HOW DID THEY UNDERESTIMATE THAT CARD SO BADLY?!?!?!?!

[@Krisspear]

I like the idea, but I really dislike the names of the complex rankings

[@Justanothermusicnerdxo]

You and Trump are my favorite HS youtubers

[@gunthereinritterdesheilige8436]

Where is renounce darkness on your list

[@blueisim5028]

How would you rate spiritsinger umbra?

[@MajkaSrajka]

Cenarious "slightly lacking" lul

[@anqied]

It looks like an alignment chart

[@vyggdrasil1631]

That last line "I've put more thought into this than most" makes you sound pretentious for no reason

[@randomcatname7792]

Meh I don't have s problem with him saying it if it's true

[@TripleR7331]

Given how many people take ratings from streamers like Trump at face value (and later insult him after crafting something like Lakkari Sacrifice day 1 expac) and don't try to understand the thought processes behind them, like his value-oriented style of gameplay or previous metas, it's not incorrect that a lot of people don't put much thought into rating systems.

[@720pchannel]

Trump is one of those though. I completely stopped watching his streams and videos since his review that gave every single priest card cause it was an aye opener to how shitty his content is

[@stylesheetra9411]

The funny things is that all this system is Just "idk lets see in the future" Im lucky in my language there are good cards review, because english One are usually bad as hell

[@probe1765]

@@720pchannel I'm, uh, not sure I see the bridge in logic between "Trump is wrong about HS cards" and "ALL his content is shitty".