As I said, I’ve played absolutely zero games with Kruarg. And when I said I frequently achieve 13 gems for conditionals effortlessly, I meant it literally – it frequently occurs when I’m not even trying to engineer it. So if I have a “strategy” that’s conducive to it, I’m not aware of what it is.
I wasn’t trying to suggest that you don’t know how to play, or that I’m any better. I’m most likely worse. My point is that the dominant playstyle revolving around converters normally works very well, because it manipulates the the board, rapidly charges spells, and grants lots of extra turns. But just because it’s effective doesn’t mean it will work for everything. Converting often creates large clumps, which removes large sections of the board, and causes lots of cascades. Depending on the original distribution and targeting, this either biases the board towards fewer colors, which are easily matched away, or it resets most of the board to an average distribution, which is close to 10 gems of each color. What you want for conditionals is the target color spread across the board, blocked from being matched. Gem creators are probably better than converters for this purpose, though risky.
The converter style of play works best with conditionals that also grant an extra turn, so that you can leave the quad-matches on the board. This is why it’s so effective with Mab. Cast Valkyrie, cast Mab, match the quads, cast Mab again. Dire Wolf is the only other troop that currently has a gem-count conditional and spell that grants an extra turn, and it wouldn’t be very useful to cast it back-to-back in most cases.
I just don’t think it’s a problem for different troops to work best with different playstyles. Looping converters shouldn’t be the only option, and shouldn’t get the maximum benefit from every troop for no additional effort. Gem-count conditionals are deliberately something different that rewards matching gems and careful board manipulation, rather than spamming spells.