I do not have anything against people liking a tactical game without RNG elements, that is fine, you can enjoy whatever the hell you want. What I do have a problem with is illogical arguments.
There are plenty of arguments to be made in favour of a game with tactical combat without RNG elements, however, the ones that imply "more rng = less tactics", or anything of that sort, are just factually wrong.
There are plenty of examples to showcase that there is absolutely no correlation between those two factors. It is possible to have no RNG and no tactics, it is possible to have a lot of RNG and a lot of tactics (frankly there are dozens of examples of both).
The beauty of combat in a tactical game is giving the player the tools to overcome the possibility of randomness, that is when you know it was well done. I've yet to see a really good tactical combat game without any rng elements (or very little of them really), mainly because those do have the tendency of going bland. This specifically could be a case of personal prefference though.
