If the result could have devastating outcomes then it's still bad for the SM player since it's a dead card, as compared to something else they could have included that's consistently playable. It's also not 'just stupid', there is always the chance of getting the 3/3 ambush with nothing being sacrificed and the player having assessed that as being their only out to win the game. Because the result is not deterministic there will be situations where it's good or bad depending on their and their opponent's dial selection. Choose to whiff it? There is no such thing, the reaction is forced.
Its no different to including any other direct counter that has little use outside of the intended counter scenario. But this is the thing, the fact that playing the unit can give "the chance of getting the 3/3 ambush with nothing being sacrificed" is one of the main issues I have with the card: it's adding extra randomness to a game that wasn't designed to have much randomness beyond that of cards. If I wanted a random game I'd play Destiny (which I do play, but I play it with the knowledge of randomness is a key component). Regarding the whiff, I was referring to the DPA. You can choose to not trigger it if there's nothing in the 6 worth getting, which if you, say, had an elite on planet 2 alone whilst having played the DPA to 1 it might be a legitimate choice.
This doesn't make sense unless they are inexperienced with the mechanic. It's like saying you will more consistently beat someone you know at RPC, but the same could be said for your opponent since they know you too. If it devolves into randomness then you can take advantage of that, so the player should always think. I've also played numerous games without this card where, in the end, the result was determined by a coin flip of who committed where so it's not dramatically different.
You'd be surprised. In my meta I'd be able guess where my opponent would select probably 8/10 times. I'm rarely surprised by their commitments, for example. The thing is with commitments, though, is that the number of times where the decision is truly a coin flip is quite minimal, whereas the number of times where it isn't with the Crusader is minimal.
The card was not introduced by 'peoples concern about the elite meta', it was the world champion prize for a player and the card design they submitted. You stressed in your original post that this wasn't about balance, it was about game fit, but even if it was potentially unbalanced then it wouldn't make sense unless they were all banned since they're all potentially untested. Further, whether or not that person's other card was banned is irrelevant.
I know that it might not have necessarily been created to counter elites, but plenty of people are treating it as such so I was merely responding to that point.
Thing is, I've never been in favour of banning cards before. I've always had the mentality of "learn to beat it" when a strong card has been released (Klaviex, Palace, Barracks, Exarch etc) but the issue here is that the mechanic is fundamentally at odds with the nature of the game. One of the signifying appeals of Conquest is the fact that, beyond card draw, the game relies far more on skill than luck. This weakens that significantly.
I'll concede, however, that banning it might be a slightly extreme response, so I'm encouraging everyone to vote in Steinerp's poll and so that we can see if people are interested in an errata instead, however my personal opinion still stands that the ability can't be fixed without a radical overhaul (but I may well be wrong).
Regardless, this thread has engaged a debate which can only ever be a good thing.