90% sucess rate and still missing

[Tarrick]

The whole 'sample size' is really a pet peeve of mine. If you really got 12 misses in a row with 90%, that's not a small sample. The chance of that happening is 1 trillion in 1. It is a virtual statistical impossibility. If you have proof this actually happened I can almost certainly agree with you that the RNG is indeed messed up. Though I'm sure failing 12 times in a row at 90% didn't actually happen and is only an exaggeration.

When you come to terms with the fact that the order in which random events happen doesn't matter, you will see that it's a small sample. If there were 1 million successful consecutive events prior to that, no one would be here complaining about them. They would, however, be a necessary component of the analysis of the RNG.

Though I'm sure failing 12 times in a row at 90% didn't actually happen and is only an exaggeration.

This is definitely the more likely scenario.