But by using arguments like that, you're moving away from the objective definition of 'universally inferior'. I think turinturamba is right: if we try to take into account every possible interaction between different cards, then we may end up with a completely empty list simply because the condition is too strict. Pickpocket is the ultimate example because with Pickpocket in play, one can always make the argument that they would be better off if a numerically weaker card was stolen. Furthermore, if we are taking interactions with other cards into account, we're standing on ever-shifting ground in that changing one seemingly unrelated card may change whether or not a particular pair of items should be on the list. For example, in the current version of the game, one could make the argument that healing for a small amount is sometimes better than healing for a large amount, because a small amount may lead to a longer chain with Talented Healer, but when Talented Healer is changed in the next version, that argument will no longer apply. Maybe later in some future version some new interaction will be introduced which affects other cards. For example, maybe there will be a card which says something like "target cannot play any move card with move-3 or greater", in which case Walk would no longer be 'universally inferior' to Run... With this stuff in mind, I think it would be reasonable to relax the restrictions on the list to be just 'numerically inferior', so that Run is always better than Walk; Big Zap is always better than Zap and so on. I think it would be pretty unusual for someone to put Zap in their deck rather than Big Zap. Even if they are hoping to draw out Weak Block or something like that, it's such an obscure and situational strategy that I think we're better off just ignoring that and letting pairs of items appear on the list if they only differ in that kind of way.